Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Yorkshire (Woollen District) Transport Bill [Lords].

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Humber Bridge Bill (by Order).

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next, at half-past Seven of the Clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLAND (EASTERN GALICIA).

Mr. MANDER: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider the advisability of proposing at the next session of the Council of the League of Nations that the question as to whether Poland, as a result of her failure to carry out the decision of the Council of Ambassadors in 1923, which granted her certain rights over Eastern Galicia, has caused that decision to lapse, should be submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): My right hen. Friend does not think that a reference of this question to the Permanent Court would be advantageous at the present time.

Mr. MANDER: Have negotiations been resumed between the Polish Government and the Ukrainian representatives?

Mr. DALTON: We have not had any specific information on that subject since the last meeting of the Committee of Three, of which my right hon. Friend is chairman. But as the hon. Member knows, he is keeping a careful watch on any developments in connection with this question.

Mr. HANNON: Have not the Polish Government every desire to settle this question satisfactorily?

Mr. DALTON: I hope that is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY (EXTRADITION TREATY).

Mr. DAY: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement with reference to the negotiations that have been proceeding with a view to the conclusion of the new extradition treaty between His Majesty's Government and the Italian Government?

Mr. DALTON: Negotiations with the Italian Government with a view to the conclusion of a new extradition treaty are in progress, but they have not reached a stage at which my right hon. Friend can usefully make any statement.

Mr. DAY: Will the new treaty contain an optional clause with regard to the surrender of nationals?

Mr. DALTON: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a specific question, and we shall then be able to look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

EASTERN RAILWAY (CUSTOMS).

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has yet ascertained whether the negotiations for the purchase by the Chinese Government of the Soviet Government's share in the Chinese Eastern Railway include the reduction of customs against Russian goods with similar reductions to British goods under our Treaty rights?

Mr. DALTON: My right hon. Friend has asked His Majesty's Minister in China for a report, and is now awaiting his reply.

EXTRA-TERRITORIALITY.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will postpone his statement on extra-territoriality in China until the Feetham Report is in the hands of Members of this House?

Mr. DALTON: My right hon. Friend's statement will be made when the Foreign Office Vote is put down for discussion
in this House. This is a matter which rests with right hon. Gentlemen opposite rather than with him. Copies of the first volume of Mr. Justice Feetham's report were placed in the Library three weeks ago. My right hon. Friend hopes to receive copies of the second volume, which will likewise be placed in the Library, in the course of the next fortnight. But he cannot, of course, give any definite undertaking to postpone the Debate until after the second volume has been received.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the Foreign Secretary defer his final decision about Shanghai until we have had a full opportunity of considering the Feetham report?

Mr. DALTON: My right hon. Friend, of course, is very anxious to read the Feetham report, as all serious students of this problem are, but I doubt if I can add anything to the statement that I have already made.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

DEAD SEA SALTS CONCESSION.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any further communications have taken place with the French Government regarding the Dead Sea concession which was given to Mr. Moses Novamesky; and what is the present position of the negotiations?

Mr. DALTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. A further note from the French Government has recently been received and is now being examined.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the hon. Member yet say whether this matter is going to be taken to the Hague? Has not the condition of affairs rather changed since the original note?

Mr. DALTON: His Majesty's Government made an offer in July of last year to take the question to the Hague, but that offer has up to date not been accepted by the French Government.

LAND DEVELOPMENT.

Mr. McSHANE: 16.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now able to make a statement
on the negotiations concerning land development in Palestine?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): No Sir, not yet, but I hope that it may not be long delayed.

DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT.

Mr. MARCUS: 17.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when the appointment of a director of development for Palestine will be made; what his precise duties will be; how long his engagement will last; and the amount of his remuneration?

Dr. SHIELS: It is hoped to make an appointment in the near future. I expect to be able to give the particulars asked for when the announcement of the appointment is made.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the hon. Member say whether this director is to be an Englishman, so as to make a balance?

SPAIN (SITUATION).

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make a statement on the present situation in Spain?

Mr. DALTON: The present situation in Spain is one of comparative calm. The elections duly took place on Sunday last, but the information available as to the results is still incomplete. His Majesty's Ambassador has reported that things were quiet in Madrid, though there was a small anti-clerical incident in one of the suburbs. There were minor disturbances in some of the provinces.

Sir K. WOOD: Is any form of censorship still in existence in Spain?

Mr. DALTON: I could not say without notice.

Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that Spain is more stable on account of so many Social Democrats being returned?

Mr. DALTON: I am sure my hon. Friend will be glad to know that, according to Press reports, the Socialist party are the strongest party in the new Parliament, and hon. Members opposite will be reassured to know that no Communists have yet been elected.

Mr. HANNON: Arising out of the original reply, can the hon. Member state if he has had any complaints of any inconvenience to British citizens in Spain under the new régime?

Mr. DALTON: No, I am glad to say that we have had no such complaints except—I do not want to deceive the hon. Member—that there were, of course, one or two complaints made with regard to losses of property, which have already been referred to in this House. But so far as our information goes, British subjects are travelling freely and happily in Spain under the new régime.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can my hon. Friend say whether the system of election there was the alternative vote or proportional representation?

Mr. DALTON: I am afraid I should require notice of that question.

Mr. MANDER: Is it not also a fact that the Liberal party will be the controlling party in the new Parliament?

RUSSIA (CURRENCY REGULATIONS).

Mr. HASLAM: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to make any statement on the confiscation of British travellers' money under the currency regulations introduced by the Russian Government last March?

Mr. DALTON: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has as yet only received an interim reply from His Majesty's Ambassador, who will report further as soon as possible.

Mr. HASLAM: Has the Foreign Secretary made any protests on these confiscations of travellers' money, which have now been going on since last March?

Mr. DALTON: Our Ambassador in Moscow has been asked to take the matter up with the Soviet authorities. He has already done so, and he hopes to send us a further report shortly as to what their attitude is on the representations which he has made.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Why is it that negotiations with the Soviet autho-
rities always take nine or 10 times the length of negotiations with other foreign countries?

REPARATIONS AND INTER-GOVERNMENTAL DEBTS.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any further information as to the progress of negotiations in relation to the United States of America's proposal for the postponement of inter-governmental debt and reparations payments?

Mr. DALTON: As the hon. and gallant Member will be aware, negotiations are now proceeding, but my right hon. Friend is not in a position to make any statement at present.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 67.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a comparative table showing the effect of the acceptance of the Hoover debt holiday compared with the effect of a moratorium of conditional payments under the Young plan?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): It would be premature to attempt to give any precise figures as to the effect of the acceptance of President Hoover's proposal until the technical arrangements required to carry it out have been finally settled.

NORTH SEA FISHERIES CONVENTION.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs from which of the Powers signatories to the International Convention for the purpose of regulating the police of the fisheries in the North Sea outside territorial waters, signed in 1882, representations have been received as to the need for the reconsideration and revision of the articles of the convention?

Mr. DALTON: A Note has been received from the Netherlands Minister inquiring whether His Majesty's Government would be prepared to participate in an international conference with a view to a revision of the Convention. His Majesty's Government are at present considering their reply.

Mr. MILLAR: Will the hon. Member take an opportunity of communicating with the other Powers signatories to the Convention, so that the matter may be discussed among all those interested in the North Sea fisheries?

Major McKENZIE WOOD: And with Norway too?

FRENCH NAVAL PROGRAMME.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he now has further information with regard to the French naval programme for 1931–32; and whether the naval attaché credited to His Majesty's Embassy in Paris is making the usual reports?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): I have no further information with regard to the French Naval programme for 1931–32. The programme has been voted by the Chamber of Deputies in an amended form, but it has not yet been debated in the Senate. The reply to the latter part of the question is in the affirmative.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Did not the amendment mean that the large capital ship proposed to be constructed has been postponed?

Mr. AMMON: Yes. The Chamber decided to postpone the motion to lay down a battleship.

SUBMARINE "NAUTILUS."

Captain P. MACDONALD: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what assistance is being rendered by his Department to Sir Hubert Wilkins; and whether any arrangements are being made for an escort for the submarine "Nautilus" on her voyage north from Empire waters?

Mr. AMMON: The "Nautilus" has been taken in hand at Devonport Dockyard for docking, cleaning and coating bottom, and carrying out certain repairs to her machinery and electrical equipment. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

CYPRUS (AMENDMENT LAW).

Mr. BROCKWAY: 18.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies
whether he is aware that the legislation introduced into the legislative council of Cyprus, amending the Village Law of 1900, imposes forced labour for six days on road-making upon those who do not pay the tax required; and whether he will take steps to terminate this forced labour entirely?

Dr. SHIELS: As I stated on 23rd June, the text of the Amendment Law to which the hon. Member refers has only recently been received and is still under examination. Until the examination has been completed, I can express no opinion as to the effect of the law and must not be understood as accepting the interpretation which the hon. Member puts upon it.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Is not the only difference this, that previously they paid if they did not work, and now they work if they do not pay?

Major COLFOX: How do the conditions of forced labour there compare with the conditions of forced lahour in Russia?

Mr. McSHANE: Would it not be possible for us to have a copy of the Amendment Law to which the hon. Member referred?

Dr. SHIELS: I will see if that is possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

AERODROMES, WEST RIDING.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of aerodromes in the West Riding of Yorkshire at the present time; whether these are regarded as sufficient for existing purposes; and whether his Department has made, or intends to make, representations to the local authorities in favour of the building of an aerodrome at Sheffield?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): There is one permanent civil aerodrome licensed for public use in the West Riding of Yorkshire; this is at Sherburn-in-Elmet. The provision of additional aerodromes would certainly be in the best interests of civil aviation, and in October, 1928, municipal authorities throughout the country, including Sheffield, were circularised in this sense. The Corporation of Sheffield have
had the matter under active consideration, and, at their request, one or two possible sites in the neighbourhood have been inspected by the Air Ministry. I hope that the result may be the provision of an aerodrome at Sheffield.

Mr. SMITH: Can the hon. Member say whether any negotiations are in progress with his Department regarding the establishment of an aerodrome in any other part of this area?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I have already said that negotiations have been proceeding. The only thing that we can do is to advise the corporation of Sheffield as to suitable sites, and that has been done.

CLOSE FORMATION FLYING.

Sir GEORGE PENNY: 22.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what utility there is in the policy of close flying; and whether in view of the danger which it entails, he will give instructions to discontinue such formation flying?

Mr. MONTAGUE: The late War showed conclusively that formation flying was essential for the mutual protection of aircraft against the enemy and its effective development undoubtedly resulted in a marked reduction in casualties. Its practice in time of peace is therefore indispensable. The training regulations of the Royal Air Force provide for the observance of minimum distances between aircraft when flying in formation, and I can assure the hon. Member that every possible care is taken to remove the risk of collision. I may add that collisions between aircraft flying in formation have been very few.

Sir G. PENNY: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the casualty at Chichester recently, and will he state the minimum distance required for flying in close formation?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I cannot answer that question without notice. Of course, I know all the facts with regard to the accident mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

CIVIL AVIATION.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 23.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the proposal to increase the
subsidy to Imperial Airways, Limited, in order to enable the company to fly the Indian section of the London-Australia air-mail route has been considered again; what would be the amount of extra subsidy required; and whether any objection is raised to such a course by any other Government?

Mr. MANDER: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what arrangements are contemplated for the carrying on of Imperial Airways' service to India and beyond, in view of the decision to suspend the development of Indian civil aviation?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I would refer to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India on Monday last, from which it will be seen that the organisation at Karachi will be maintained for the operation of the England-India service and that the service from Karachi to Delhi now operated by Imperial Airways will be continued until the expiry of the present charter. It would be premature to make any further statement as to the future pending a final decision by the Indian Government with regard to the operation of an Indian State Air Service across India.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Gentleman has not really answered my question. Has the question of our paying the subsidy to Imperial Airways been reconsidered in view of the need for economy in India, and may I ask him to answer the last part of my question whether any objection has been raised?

Mr. MONTAGUE: The answer to the last point is no. So far as consideration is concerned, we have considered all aspects of the question, including the need for economy in this country.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the other part of Question 23 as to the amount of the extra subsidy required?

Mr. MONTAGUE: The hon. Member is able to put down a question on that.

Mr. WILLIAMS: It is on the Paper.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I must really ask for a reply. How can we get answers to questions that are down?
I ask for a definite sum, I know that it is available, and how can I get it? There is nothing confidential about it.

Mr. MONTAGUE: The main part of the two questions has to deal with what has happened in India in regard to civil aviation. I admit that the question asked about the amount of the extra subsidy, and I will do my best to let both hon. Members know.

HON. MEMBERS: Why not now?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: On a point of Order. Information on the subject being of importance, should it not be circulated and not sent only to the two hon. Members?

Mr. MONTAGUE: On the Estimates I gave full information on the subject.

FINANCIAL STABILITY.

Mr. HACKING: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, as one of the conditions upon which financial support will be given to India, he will insist that a preference shall be given to British goods entering that country?

Mr. HACKING: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, before granting financial support to India he will insist upon a definite undertaking that the boycott against British goods entering India shall cease?

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will take into consideration, when settling the suitable conditions under which financial assistance shall be offered to India, that one of such conditions shall be the safeguarding of the liberty to sell Lancashire cotton goods in India, which is at present being denied to our traders?

Mr. SANDHAM: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government, in considering the question of financial aid to India, took into account the practicability of purchase by the Government from Lancashire mills of supplies of cotton cloth, suitable for use in India, such supplies to be placed at the disposal of India on long-term credits, in order to check the decline of the industry in Lancashire?

Sir F. HALL: 51.
asked the Prime Minister what are the guarantees and safeguards attached to the offer of financial support from the Imperial Govern-
ment to the Government of India; and if he will arrange for a White Paper to be issued setting out the terms of the financial arrangements which have been agreed to by the Government?

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 52.
asked the Prime Minister for what reason he proposes that financial support should be given at the expense of the British taxpayer to maintain the credit of India, in view of his refusal to use British credit to reorganise British industries?

Mr. BRACKEN: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can give the House an estimate of the contingent liability incurred by Great Britain under the proposal to give financial support to the credit of India?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The purpose of the statement I made on 26th June was to remove apprehensions pending the settlement of the constitutional problem and the formulation of provisions which will ensure the maintenance of India's credit. No occasion for giving financial assistance to the Government of India has arisen, and I trust and believe no such occasion will arise. If it did, the consent of Parliament would of course be required, and the opportunity would then be available to discuss the conditions under which assistance could be given. As regards the boycott of British goods, I would refer to previous statements made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India, and as regards economic concessions, I may say at once that the Government do not contemplate in this connection any measures that would interfere with the operation of the Fiscal Autonomy Convention which has now been in force for a number of years.

Mr. CHURCHILL: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the important declaration made by him the other day was made upon the sole authority of His Majesty's Government, or whether it has been the subject of consultation with the leaders of other parties?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that I cannot charge my memory definitely at the moment as to what the operation was, but certainly it was communicated to the leaders of the parties. Whether they were consulted or not, I am not very sure.

Mr. CHURCHILL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the very grave and far-reaching issues which have necessarily and inevitably been raised by his declaration—the merits of which I am not discussing—he will arrange for the House to have an early opportunity of debating this question?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Debate undoubtedly will come if and when it is necessary to bring the matter before the House in the form of leave to make whatever grant or arrangement may be necessary in order to implement that statement.

Mr. SANDHAM: I want to raise a point of Order. In consequence of the fact that I have a question on the Paper, No 50, applying to this matter, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has no question on the Paper, may I ask that the questions on the Paper should be dealt with before matters affecting right hon. Gentlemen, who have no questions down?

Mr. SPEAKER: We are dealing with the questions on the Paper.

Mr. CHURCHILL: May I ask leave of the right hon. Gentleman——

Mr. BROCKWAY: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is not a rule of this House that when Members have questions on the Paper, and they rise to put supplementary questions, they are called upon before other hon. Members?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know that there is any rule about it. I endeavour to give a preference to those hon. Members who have questions on the Paper. We are now dealing with an answer to seven or eight questions.

Mr. CHURCHILL: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that his statement definitely commits this country to certain contingent obligations, in view of which the investors throughout the country are being guided, and that thus, in a way, we are being committed to—[Interruption]—the right hon. Gentleman will not allow the House an opportunity of Debate upon this question?

Mr. THORNE: Has there been any consultation with the Opposition about this matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly there would be a debate. This Government and any other Government responsible for the government of this country will see to it that any obligations incurred in relation to India's credit will not be allowed to be let down.

Mr. CHURCHILL: rose
——

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman must not abuse the latitude which I have given him of putting supplementary questions.

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: With regard to the question of boycott, will the Prime Minister see that no financial support is given to India unless there is a definite improvement with regard to the boycott of Lancashire?

The PRIME MINISTER: We cannot allow the credit of India, for the management of which we are very largely responsible, to be mixed up and made conditional to any other subject upon which we are negotiating in an independent way.

Mr. SANDHAM: May I ask, arising out of the original reply to Question 50, if the underlying economic principle covered by that question will be kept in mind by the Prime Minister, particularly in view of the fact that this would be turning unemployment pay into useful economic channels?

The PRIME MINISTER: Whatever sympathy I may have with the view of my hon. Friend, it would be most improper to mix this question up with the problem of the security of India's credit.

Sir F. HALL: When the right hon. Gentleman made his statement in the House in which he said it will not be possible to introduce the proposed constitutional changes if financial stability is not assured, may I ask whether the Prime Minister made that statement entirely on his own initiative; or whether he had been in communication with India on the subject, and if so, will he be kind enough to lay a White Paper on the subject on the Table in order that we may be made fully aware of the whole facts of the case?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is a totally different subject from the one raised in the question, but, as a matter
of fact, there are no papers, so far as I know, upon this subject to lay on the Table.

Sir W. BRASS: Are we to understand, from the right hon. Gentleman's reply, that no conditions so far as the boycott is concerned are to be taken into account; and will the right hon. Gentleman, in the event of financial assistance being given to India, take into account the financial position of Lancashire?

The PRIME MINISTER: The financial position of Lancashire is being taken into account; but the Government is not, and I am perfectly certain that the nation is not, going to allow people who have invested in Indian credit to be worsened by anything that may happen because there is doubt as to whether that country is going to fulfil its responsibilities or not.

Several HON MEMBERS: rose
——

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow any more supplementary questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAYS (ELECTRIFICATION).

Mr. DAY: 24.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received any communication from the railway companies relating to the electrification of main line railways; and can he give particulars and state what his reply has been?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have within the last few days, received a communication from the Railway Companies' Association in regard to this matter, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

Mr. DAY: Have the experts of the railway companies examined this scheme?

Mr. MORRISON: Yes. The technical officers of the railway companies have examined it, but the reply has only just been received, and I would rather not say more at this stage.

Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact that the question of the electrification of railways has been before the House repeatedly, and that promises have been
made from time to time of a definite statement as to the intention of the railway companies? When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to tell the House?

Mr. MORRISON: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not think that I am the railway companies. They belong to private owners, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will respect their rights more than I should. The reply has only just been received, and I do not think there has been undue delay.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: In other words, the private companies are much more efficient than the Minister?

ROAD CONSTRUCTION (FOREIGN STONE).

Mr. DAY: 25.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any records and can state the names of the county or other local authorities that have utilised foreign broken stone in their works during the previous two years?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have not sufficient information to enable me to give a list of the county or other local authorities that have utilised foreign road stone during the previous two years.

Mr. DAY: Is the county of Devon one of those that have used foreign broken stone in some of their public works?

Mr. MORRISON: I cannot say.

Sir W. BRASS: Has the Minister any power to insist that British stone should be used?

Mr. MORRISON: No, not to insist.

OMNIBUSES (STANDING PASSENGERS).

Mr. McSHANE: 28.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the inconvenience and discontent caused by the regulation limiting the number of people allowed to stand in motor omnibuses to the number of five, particularly in sparsely-populated districts in wet weather and also elsewhere during rush hours; and whether, especially since many such omnibuses have been specially designed to allow a greater number to stand, he will have this regulation in some way modified?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Before making the regulations to which my hon.
Friend refers, I gave careful consideration to the views of representatives both of operators of public service vehicles and of persons employed in the industry. I do not think that in general it would make for the convenience or the safety of the travelling public to increase the permissible number of standing passengers.

Mr. McSHANE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the complaints to which I have referred are complaints that cannot possibly be foreseen by those engaged in the Traffic Department when making arrangements for vehicles, particularly in the rural areas, where the services are necessarily infrequent; and cannot some elasticity be allowed in the rural areas?

Mr. MORRISON: On the other hand, one must be careful that vehicles constructed to carry a certain number do not carry a bigger number. I have to face the fact that the workpeople in the industry strongly object to standing passengers, and my hon. Friend will not mind if I take the views of the trade unions into account as well as the views of other people.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in restricting the number of omnibuses this problem becomes very acute, especially in London in rush hours, and will he invite his predecessor to stand with six or seven others on a wet day and compete with a crowd of flappers for a place in an omnibus?

Mr. MORRISON: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is altogether respectful in his reference to the young ladies of London who use the omnibuses. I rather resent it. In any case, the hon. Gentleman has assumed that a situation exists wich he has no right to assume does exist.

Mr. BROWN: May I refer to that point——[Interruption.]

HEAVY OIL EXPERIMENTS, MOTOR OMNIBUSES.

Mr. R. S. YOUNG: 29.
asked the Minister of Transport the results of the experiments in certain towns of using crude oil for motor omnibuses?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I understand that certain experiments are now being made with engines using heavy oil on public service vehicles, but it is not at present possible to arrive at any definite conclusions as to their results.

TRAFFIC REGULATIONS, OXFORD STREET.

Mr. R. S. YOUNG: 30.
asked the Minister of Transport the result of the special traffic regulations in Oxford Street?

Sir G. PENNY: 34.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement as to the working of the new traffic regulations in Oxford Street; and whether any steps are being taken to ameliorate the congestion in the side streets and to deal with the increased danger to pedestrians?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The new traffic regulations were brought into operation in Oxford Street on 22nd June and are part of a scheme which includes the introduction of traffic control signals. It is, therefore, premature to form any final opinion as to the working of the regulations until the signalling installation has been in operation for a reasonable trial period. At present the traffic is being controlled by constables on point duty in order that drivers of vehicles may gain experience of the effect of the regulations, but the additional advantages which may be expected from the accurate and co-ordinated timing of the periods during which traffic is held up or released at the various street intersections cannot be secured until the signals themselves are brought into operation. Some time must necessarily elapse before drivers of vehicles, as well as pedestrians, have become familiar with the altered conditions, and the experiment will be closely watched from the point of view of the safety as well as the convenience of all classes of road users.

Mr. YOUNG: Is it not a fact that even with this inadequate experiment so far Oxford Street is much less congested?

Mr. MORRISON: I have visited Oxford Street, and I think, certainly, that on the whole it has improved. There are bound to be difficulties during the first period of control, and no final opinion can be expressed until the light signals have had a reasonable trial.

Sir G. PENNY: What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to ameliorate the congestion in the side streets?

Mr. MORRISON: That is an aspect of the matter which is being watched. Of course, particularly in the early stages, some difficulties might arise, but we shall watch them carefully. The whole experiment will be subject to review after two or three months' trial.

Mr. MATTERS: Has the Minister been made aware of the result of the new traffic regulations as shown in these papers?

Mr. YOUNG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the light signals are in operation at midnight and onwards, but that vehicles pay no attention to them? Is not that a dangerous process?

Mr. MORRISON: At the moment they are not effectively in operation at all. We are, so to speak, experimenting with them during the night hours. Certain other experiments are taking place until they are permanently in operation; but there is no serious use of the light signals so far.

Sir W. BRASS: In view of the congestion that exists at the present time, could not the right hon. Gentleman suspend this experiment until the light signals are ready?

Mr. MORRISON: No, Sir. It was decided that we should have this experimental period without the light signals in order that we can gradually work into them, and, on the whole, I think that is the sound thing to do.

HUMBER BRIDGE BILL.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 31.
asked the Minister of Transport what expenses the Crown is now liable for under the agreement to pay 75 per cent. of the legal charges incurred in promoting the Humber Bridge Bill; and whether he has formed any estimate as to the Crown liability in the event of the Bill being opposed in another place?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I presume my hon. and gallant Friend, by "legal expenses" means the total expenses, including witnesses, shorthand notes, etc., up to the date when the
scheme received the approval of the Committee of the First House. It is not possible to give a definite figure, as this cannot be accurately ascertained, the costs being subject to taxation, but the nearest estimate of the total cost is £28,600, to which the Road Fund will contribute 75 per cent., namely, £21,450. It is not possible to estimate the expenses which may be incurred by the promoters in the event of the Bill being opposed in another place, as this is entirely dependent upon the extent of the opposition, which, until petitions are lodged, is unknown. It is not, however, anticipated that the Committee stage in the Upper House is likely to occupy anything like so much time as it did in the First House.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but is there any way by which he can inform the bodies who are opposing this, the railway companies, the canal companies, and so on, with all their shareholders and others, of the tremendous expense that is being run up?

TRAVELLING FACILITIES, LEYTOX.

Mr. BROCKWAY: 32.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the medical officer of health for Leyton, in his report for 1930, states that the overcrowding in the trains from the City to Leyton exposes the travelling public to risks of infection; and whether he is prepared to take action to provide better travelling facilities from the City to Leyton?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am aware of the observations contained in the report referred to with respect to train services between the City and Leyton. I am, however, informed by the railway company that a recent examination of the loading of the trains in each direction on this section of the line discloses that, taken as a whole, the seating accommodation is adequate, but that it happens in some instances that while there are vacant seats in the front part of the trains, at the rear passengers are standing. I also understand that the trains are being run to their maximum length, and that owing to the volume of traffic passing over the line it is not possible to increase the service by running additional trains during the peak hours.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Was not the investigation by the railway company made at least a year ago? May I ask whether the differences in view between the railway company and the borough council and the people of Leyton would not justify an independent investigation by the Ministry of Transport?

Mr. MORRISON: I am not sure when the inquiry was undertaken. I would remind my hon. Friend that there was lately an elaborate inquiry into the travelling facilities in East and North-East London, an outcome of which was a recommendation that much could be done towards improvement by proper coordination, which is being undertaken under the London Passenger Transport Bill.

Mr. THORNE: Are there any negotiations for a new railway down to Ching-ford and to Romford?

Mr. MORRISON: That might be one of the happy consequences of the London Passenger Traffic Bill. I see no other way of doing it.

CROSS-ROADS (COLLISIONS).

Mr. HURD: 33.
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to the increase of motor accidents, often fatal, through collisions at crossroads; and whether he will approve of a standard form of danger sign to be erected at these points?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am not aware of any evidence that would point to the conclusion that motor accidents at cross-roads are increasing at the present time. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, there is already in existence a standard international sign giving warning of the approach to cross-roads which has been erected in large numbers throughout the country. I may add that I propose shortly to review the whole question of road traffic signs in connection with the provisions of Section 48 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930.

Mr. HURD: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Traffic Commissioners in various areas to give attention to this matter, so as to advise him on any further means that may be taken to deal with this cross-roads question?

Mr. MORRISON: This is not a matter which comes within the jurisdiction of the Traffic Commissioners at all. It must be settled in consultation between the Ministry and the local authorities, and it is actively under consideration.

Sir W. BRASS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider putting up danger signals at cross-roads in London?

Mr. MORRISON: Yes, we will consider that.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Has it been brought to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman that a disproportionate number of accidents at cross-roads is caused by long distance coaches working to scheduled time?

Mr. MORRISON: In so far as that is a problem, and I agree that it is, it will progressively be brought under control under the new licensing system.

Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: In view of the fact that there are, unfortunately, cases of petrol tanks catching fire, can the Minister make representations to car owners on this matter?

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT (AMENDING LEGISLATION).

Mr. CAMPBELL: 36.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can inform the House when the one-clause Bill providing for the repeal of Sub-section (3) of Section 61 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, will be introduced?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The Bill has already been introduced in another place.

Mr. CAMPBELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman use every endeavour to expedite the passage of the Bill, bearing in mind that if it does not soon become law many thousands of children will not be able to go for their summer holidays?

Mr. MORRISON: We have that point in mind, and I understand there is a general desire among all parties concerned to co-operate towards that end, and I will do what I can to assist.

Mr. BATEY: Is the Title of the amending Bill wide enough to allow the House to discuss additions to it?

Mr. MORRISON: No, Sir, it is not; otherwise we should not get the Bill quickly enough.

HEADLIGHTS (EXPERIMENTS).

Sir W. BRASS: 37.
asked the Minister of Transport what experiments were made with non-dazzling and dipping headlights before the draft regulations on this subject were issued; whether the experiments were conducted under ordinary night-travelling conditions on busy roads; and whether an experiment on the French way of dealing with the dazzle difficulty was included?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The officers of my Department have kept in constant touch for many years with all developments in connection with antidazzle devices and have attended and carried out numerous tests and experiments both on the road and on testing grounds. As the hon. and gallant Member knows, I am acquainted with the views of the French authorities on this subject, and one of my technical officers has attended a demonstration of one of the devices of which they have approved.

Mr. THORNE: Is it not an obligation upon car drivers to turn down the headlights?

Sir W. BRASS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the importance of making these experiments on the big main roads, so as to be able to see the power effect of the antidazzle devices?

Mr. MORRISON: I think my answer indicates that that is one of the factors which is and ought to be taken into account. My hon. Friend the Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne) will find that his point is covered by the regulations which I propose to make.

OMNIBUS AND COACH LICENCES.

Mr. CARTER: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many licences to omnibus companies in London have been issued and how many rejected from 1st January to 1st June, 1931?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): In the period mentioned, 2,689 omnibus licences and 1,432 coach licences (or "consents to use" under the Transitory Provisions Order) were issued by the Commissioner of Police. No omnibus or coach was finally rejected; 407 vehicles were rejected at first presenta-
tion, but were subsequently licensed after alterations had been made, excepting one coach, which has not been presented a second time.

TRAFFIC (MILITARY CONTROL).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 65.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider arranging for an experiment to be made in the military control of traffic on certain occasions when, as in the case of the Air Force pageant, the ordinary methods of control are inadequate?

Mr. SHORT: The problem presented by the Hendon traffic is mainly one of road space, and my right hon. Friend does not think there is any reason to suppose that any modification of the method of control or personnel engaged at and near the aerodrome would afford a solution of the difficulties.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.

CHARGES, LONDON AREA.

Mr. WEST: 35.
asked the Minister of Transport how many different types of electricity tariffs for lighting and domestic purposes are in operation in the London area; and whether any action is being taken to bring about greater uniformity in this connection?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: In the area of the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority there are at least 20 different types of electricity tariffs or methods of charging for lighting and domestic supplies, and within each of these methods there are many variations. I understand that the Joint Authority is engaged in exploring the possibility of reducing the number of variations in the basis of charge for domestic purposes, but up to the present as unable to report any measure of success.

Mr. WEST: Does not the Minister think that uniformity in charges would be very beneficial?

Mr. MORRISON: I quite agree.

MINCHINHAMPTON, CHALFORD AND BRIMSCOMBE.

Mr. PERKINS: 39.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the towns of Minchinhampton, Chalford
and Brimscombe are not yet supplied with electricity; and whether he will urge the Electricity Commissioners to press the West Gloucester Power Company to supply these towns as soon as possible?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The Electricity Commissioners have informed me that they are making inquiries into this matter; and I will communicate further with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

PERU (BRITISH LEGATION).

Major COLFOX: 40.
asked the First Commissioner of Works what was the country of origin of the various materials other than steel reinforcing bars used in the construction of the new British Legation at Lima, Peru?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): The following have been supplied from British sources:

Ornamental ironwork,
Sanitary goods.
Electric light fittings.
Door and window fittings.
Wall-tiling.
Paint and distemper.
Grates and ranges.
Glass.
I have no definite information as regards the remainder of the materials used, but it is probable that sand, gravel, bricks, cement, and wood for joinery were obtained locally by the contractor. Local stocks of constructional timber and wood flooring are being used, but these have probably been imported from the United States of America.

Major COLFOX: Is it a fact that the cement used in this building was imported from the United States of America?

Mr. LANSBURY: It happened to be on the spot, and, as it was not a very big job, we bought it.

GOVERNMENT OFFICES, EDINBURGH.

Mr. MATHERS: 43.
asked the First Commissioner of Works what response he has made to recent representations regarding the need for a concentration of Government offices in Edinburgh; and whether he will give instructions for new
plans and designs to be prepared for a building on the Calton site, which will meet with the approval of the Fine Art Commission, and so make it possible to proceed as soon as practicable with the erection of the new offices there?

Mr. LANSBURY: I have received a number of resolutions and other communications, as stated by my hon. Friend. I regret, however, that it is not possible to add anything to the reply which I gave him on this subject on 16th March last.

Mr. MATHERS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise the very great economy that there would be with the erection of such offices, not only economy in respect of rents being paid at present, but economy in time to people who have to go round these offices; and does the right hon. Gentleman's answer suggest that his Department is not capable of designing a building that would meet with the approval of the Fine Art Commission?

Mr. LANSBURY: To the last part of the question, my answer is distinctly in the negative. With regard to the question of going on with the building in Edinburgh, it is subject to financial stringency.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

TALKING FILMS.

Mr. MANDER: 44.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps are being taken to make use of talking films for the purpose; of instruction in agriculture?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): The educational value of such films is, I understand, now being considered by the Commission on Educational and Cultural Films, whose report I shall await with interest. For propaganda purposes, as distinct from education, two short talking films have already been produced by my Department, and the extension of this means of publicity is under consideration.

WHEAT QUOTA.

Sir K. WOOD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have yet arrived at any decision on the wheat
quota; and whether he proposes to make any statement upon the matter before the summer Recess?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture on 22nd May last on the Motion for the Adjournment, to which I have nothing more to add.

Sir K. WOOD: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us some more up-to-date information because some time has elapsed?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is perfectly definite that no statement can be made before the summer Recess.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 54 and 55.
asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) whether, seeing that the Irish Free State have a clean bill of health as regards foot-and-mouth disease, he can now relax the severity of the regulations forbidding the import of cattle from Southern Ireland;
(2) whether, seeing that the period of incubation of foot-and-mouth disease is from four to six days, and that for all cattle a six days' detention is a statutory requirement, and seeing that after this detention outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease appeared simultaneously in various places in England and at one place in Northern Ireland, he can yet state what was the cause of all the outbreaks; and will he investigate other possible causes of the outbreak, and in the meanwhile suspend the embargo against the importation of cattle from Ireland?

Dr. ADDISON: The evidence clearly shows that foot-and-mouth disease was introduced in Great Britain by cattle shipped from Belfast on the 10th June to Heysham and Ayr. Some of these cattle came direct from premises on which, according to information furnished by the Minister of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, disease must have existed since the first week in June. According to the latest information received from Northern Ireland, the origin of the outbreak in that country has not yet been established. I am carefully considering the question whether any
modification of the embargo on animals from Ireland can now be made with safety, and I will make an announcement as soon as possible.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Seeing that there has been no foot-and-mouth disease for many years past, and that it might come from some imported foreign substance, such as oats or, possibly, butter, will the right hon. Gentleman put an embargo on such foreign stuffs, which might have led to the disease, until this country is completely clear?

Sir K. WOOD: On a point of Order. Have you not forgotten, Mr. Speaker, to call my Question No. 48?

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: In my Question No. 55 I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can say what was the origin of the disease, and I am now simply asking whether he could not put an embargo on certain substances which might have to do with it?

Mr. SPEAKER: That really does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

CEREAL CULTIVATION.

Mr. HASLAM: 56.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will be able to make any further statement before the House separates for the summer recess as to the Government policy in aid of cereal cultivation?

Dr. ADDISON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister to-day to a question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woolwich, West (Sir K. Wood).

Mr. HASLAM: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister's answer only referred to one particular policy, namely, the quota; and are we to understand that the Government have no other policy for cereals?

Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: rose
——

Mr. SPEAKER: The question of supplementary questions is being abused.

Mr. BUTLER: On a point of Order. Is it right, on the question of cereal cultivation, which affects the workpeople in our arable districts more than any other, that supplementaires should be curtailed?

Mr. TAYLOR: May I ask why I was ruled out?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member did not rise to put a point of Order, but to put a supplementary question, and I thought that we had had enough of them.

Mr. TAYLOR: With great respect, I have hardly asked a supplementary question this Session. The gravity of the agricultural situation, and the entire absence of legislation, render——

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has been rather unfortunate in his choice of the time to ask his only supplementary question.

IMPORTED STRAWBERRY PULP.

The following questions stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Sir THOMAS INSKIP
58. To ask the Minister of Health whether the use of chemicals such as suphur dioxide or lime as preservatives will be allowed in the case of foreign strawberry pulp about to be imported during the next four weeks; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent the risk of injury to health by the use of such preservatives?
59. To ask the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the importation of foreign strawberry pulp, dressed with sulphur dioxide or other chemicals as preservatives, is about to take place; and whether he is prepared to take such steps as may be open to him to prevent such importation and, if so, what steps?

Sir THOMAS INSKIP: On a point of Order. May I direct attention to the fact that Question No. 59, which is more or less a repetition of Question No. 58, was addressed to the Minister of Agriculture, and has been transferred, without my consent, to the Ministry of Health? I beg to put Question No. 58.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): I will, with the hon. and learned Member's permission, answer these two questions together. Under the Preservatives Regulations, the only chemical preservatives allowed in strawberry pulp are sulphur dioxide and sulphites. My right hon. Friend understands that the use of these preservatives, is regarded as a commercial necessity for both home-produced and foreign fruit, and, in view of the small residual amount allowed in the jam made from the pulp, he does not think that he would be justified in amending the Regulations so as to prohibit their use.

Sir T. INSKIP: Is the hon. Lady aware that there are large quantities of strawberries awaiting picking in Hampshire which cannot be put on the market owing to the competition of this chemically dressed foreign pulp?

Miss LAWRENCE: I have no information on that point, but this I do know, that the Fruit Manufacturers' Federation are at present pressing us to allow the percentage of sulphur to be slightly increased in English jam, for the benefit of the trade

Mr. WEST: Is it not the fact that the great bulk of this foreign pulp is imported by supporters of the party opposite?

Mr. HASLAM: Will the hon. Lady put it to the Minister that jams made from such pulp, containing sulphur dioxide, should be labelled as such, so that the buying public may know what they are buying?

UNEMPLOYMENT (LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS).

Sir K. WOOD: 48.
asked the Prime Minister when, before the House rises for the Summer Recess, he proposes to introduce legislative proposals with a view to the mitigation of unemployment?

The PRIME MINISTER: Notice of a Measure to stimulate the development of housing in rural areas has already been given to the House. No further special legislative proposals are contemplated before the House rises for the Summer Recess.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Will this legislation actually be introduced before the House rises; and cannot the Government reconsider this matter with a view to bringing before the House, before we do rise, some planned method of dealing with the conditions?

Mr. W. J. BROWN: In view of the statement that this Government will stand or fall by its handling of unemployment, and of the statement we have just had that the only legislation that it is intended to introduce is a Measure dealing with housing, may I ask when the Government will resign?

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Haslam.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Prime Minister was about to reply to the first of these supplementary questions. May we not have his answer?

POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE SUBSCRIBERS' CONTRACTS).

Mr. MARCUS: 57.
asked the Post-master-General if he will consider the advisability of abolishing the condition which binds subscribers to the telephone service to pay an additional quarter's rent after the expiry of the quarter during which subscribers have given notice to terminate their contracts, as subscribers are not in receipt of any benefits in respect of this extra charge and as the Department does not incur any additional expense in removing the apparatus?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Viant): My hon. Friend is considering whether any modification of the present procedure is practicable.

BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.

Mr. PERKINS: 60.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware that the charges for the British Industries Fair, 1932, have been increased from 3s. to 3s. 6d. per square foot; and the reasons for this extra charge?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): The increased charge per square foot, for space at the British Industries Fair, 1932, is due to the necessity for providing additional accommodation for the fair. This involved the leasing of the overhead buildings at the White City, and consequent increased expenditure so as to bring these buildings into line with Olympia as regards heating, decoration and other essential services. The decision to increase the charge for space was made on the recommendation of the committee elected to represent the interests of the exhibitors.

Mr. PERKINS: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to make exceptions in the case of certain hard-pressed industries?

Mr. SHINWELL: I should think, having regard to the latter part of the answer, that the matter has been settled to the satisfaction of the exhibitors.

COAL (PRICES).

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 61.
asked the Secretary for Mines what is the average selling price of coal sold in Lancashire and of coal sold for export, respectively, for the latest period for which figures are available compared with the price for the corresponding period last year?

Mr. SHINWELL: The information asked for is not available, but the following figures may be of use to the hon. Member. The pithead price per ton disposed of commercially at Lancashire and Cheshire pits was 17s. 1¼d. during the first quarter of 1930 and 17s. 4½d. during the corresponding period this year. Export prices for Lancashire and Cheshire coal are not available separately, but the f.o.b. prices for coal exported from Lancashire ports, which includes coal from North Wales, Yorkshire and certain Midland counties, was 21s. 5d. and 21s. 1d. in the first quarters of 1930 and 1931, respectively.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: It follows, then, that the operation of the Coal Mines Act is to put up the price of coal to the Lancashire consumer, and to lower the price to Lancashire's competitors.

Mr. SHINWELL: I am afraid the hon. Member is mistaken. That does not follow from the answer.

NATURALISATION.

Mr. MARCUS: 63.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that persons with five years' residence in this country are being refused certificates of naturalisation; and what is the minimum length of residence now insisted on by his Department?

Mr. SHORT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Five years' residence in this country is one of the statutory qualifications for an application, but does not give an alien any right to naturalisation. My right hon. Friend is sometimes obliged to refuse to naturalise an alien who has lived here for much longer than that. The second part of the question does not seem to arise.

ASBESTOSIS.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: 64.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the death at the age of 50 of an employé of the Cape Asbestos Works, Barking, and to the medical evidence given at the inquest on 16th June last to the effect that a post-mortem showed definitely that the deceased was suffering from asbestosis; and whether he will take steps to amend the medical arrangement scheme made under the Silicosis (Asbestosis) Acts, 1925 and 1930, so as to apply to packers, the occupation in which this man was employed?

Mr. SHORT: My right hon. Friend has received a report by the medical inspector who attended the inquest. This shows that while the death was due to cancer, asbestosis of the lungs was also present. My hon. Friend's suggestion will be considered, but no danger has hitherto been apprehended from the packing of the manufactured materials, and the matter must be fully investigated before any conclusion is reached.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that two doctors certified at the inquest that, had this person not died from another disease, he would have died from asbestosis? [Interruption.] Is this a laughing matter?

CIVIL SERVICE (EXAMINATIONS, CLERICAL CLASSES).

Sir F. HALL: 68.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the imminence of the report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service and the possible absorption of ex-service men to established posts in the Civil Service, the former procedure will be adopted in the matter of extension of the list of successful candidates at the open competition for boys and girls held in January, 1931, for admission to the established clerical classes; and what is the policy of the Government in respect of future open competitive examination for these classes?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am not proposing to offer appointments to competitors at the examination to which the hon. and gallant Member refers in ex-
cess of the number so far declared successful until I have had an opportunity of considering the report of the Royal Commission. I shall also await the report before considering further the policy to be adopted as regards the future of this examination.

Sir F. HALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in previous examinations those who were not successful were put on established rank while ex-service men who had carried out their work satisfactorily did not have the same advantage, and will he see that this does not occur again?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that the word "successful" is misleading in that respect. I have explained on several occasions in this House that it is used in a special sense in this connection. But I have already given an assurance on what I understood to be his main request that, pending the report of the Royal Commission, I shall not take the steps to which he takes exception.

Sir F. HALL: Does not the word "successful" mean those who have attained a certain number of marks?

Mr. PEITHICK-LAWRENCE: No, it does not mean that. The word "successful" is applied to those candidates for whom places can be found at once. It frequently happens that candidates who would be regarded as successful in the ordinary sense of the word by qualifying in the matter of marks, are not found places at once and are called unsuccessful for that reason.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: Since there is an obvious anomaly in discharging men from the Civil Service with one hand and bringing them in with the other, could you not at least avoid going down the successful list and expanding it? The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that he has a very wide discretion on this matter.

BILL REPORTED.

Ashton-under-Lyne, Stalybridge, and Dukinfield (District) Waterworks Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Wallasey Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.

Great Western Railway Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Coventry Extension Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the transfer to the Grand Union Canal Company of the undertakings of the Company of Proprietors of the Leicester Navigation the Company of Proprietors of the Navigation from the river Trent to the town of Loughborough, and the Company of Proprietors of the Erewash Canal in the counties of Derby and Nottingham; to authorise the Grand Union Canal Company to execute works; and for other purposes." [Grand Union Canal (Leicester Canals Purchase, &c.) Bill [Lords].]

GRAND UNION CANAL (LEICESTER CANALS PURCHASE, &c.) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CLERKS) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 182.]

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL.

As amended, further considered.

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY.]

CLAUSE 8.—(Ascertainment of Values.)

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to move, in page 5, line 15, after the word "erections," to insert the word "roads."
May I ask your Ruling, Sir, whether in discussing this Amendment we may also discuss the two Amendments that follow which are in the same names and deal with the same matter?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have no objection to that. The only objection is that the second Amendment is not in order. I am advised that by raising the value it might create a charge.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL - THOMSON: May I ask in what respect the Amendment imposes a charge?

Mr. SPEAKER: By raising the value.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: While this is a very difficult Sub-section to construe, there can, I think, be no result of these Amendments except to reduce the charge. They take something out of the value but do not add anything to it.

Mr. SPEAKER: I will give the matter further consideration. Meanwhile I have no objection to the three Amendments being dealt with together.

Sir S. ROBERTS: This series of Amendments raises a very important question as to whether money that has been definitely put into land by the owner of the land shall be subject to the Land Tax or not. The proposition that the Government put forward is that the site shall be valued and taxed on the assumption that the community is to take back part of the value which it has created. Does it not necessarily follow that there should be deducted from that site value the value of improvements definitely put into the land by the landowner on which he has expended something by which in many cases he has greatly increased the value of the land? The proposition is unanswerable. In
fact, the Government have never in any way attempted to answer it, but have only endeavoured to try to excuse it. When, on 10th June, this matter was under discussion in Committee, and we had an opportunity of hearing the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), and the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) deal with the question, it was well known that the proposals of the Government were wrong. Yet the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman were bound to support them otherwise they could not see how the valuation could be made in a practical way. I could not help adapting the lines of Tennyson:
Their honour rooted in dishonour stood, And faith unfaithful kept them falsely true.
The Amendments on the Paper to-day are much narrower in scope than the Amendments discussed on 10th June moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). He dealt with a very large number of cases where landowners have put money into their land, and the supporters of the Government very largely rode off upon the minor points, some of which raised practical difficulties with regard to valuation, instead of answering the major point where the practical difficulties are not so great. I wish to deal with the question of roads, as it is perhaps the most important of all building development in the country where roads have not been made. In that matter the learned Solicitor-General did us the honour of giving a reasoned argument and he explained exactly how, in his view, the valuation of the roads should take place. Through the whole of his argument the idea seemed to be running that it would only be a small matter and that in certain cases the tax would not be payable until a certain time, and that part of it would be put upon one little unit and part upon another little unit, and that therefore it was not a matter of really great importance. It must be remembered that in developing land the making of private roads during the past 20 years must have cost millions of pounds. This is not an exaggeration. Every pound of those millions would be subject to tax under the Bill The total taxation to be put upon roads built by private enterprise
will be taxation which, although divided among a large number of people, will run into millions.
I will go through the case put by the learned Solicitor-General. He explained that when a builder started making a road into back land the tax would not fall upon that road until someone other than the builder was entitled to use it. As long as the builder continued making the road there would be no taxation, but as soon as somebody else had a right to go on to the road the tax would fall on the portion of the road over which he had a right to go. I will put another case to him. Suppose a builder, instead of driving a cul-de-sac, as the learned Solicitor-General has suggested, straight into a piece of land from the east, we will say, and building houses numbered two, four and six on one side and numbered one, three and five on the other side, and selling or letting them as he went on, made a road right through to another highway on the other side. As soon as a purchaser occupied a house upon that road, he would naturally have the right to go through either highway, and the consequence would be that immediately that was done the whole of the tax would fall upon the owner of the land on the side of the road connecting the two highways. The method of development which the learned Solicitor-General indicated may not be the most useful method. He suggested that a builder might buy a field and put a road through it. There are other developments. A landowner may make a road and put up the usual sign, "These delightful eligible plots to be sold" for such-and-such purposes, and you make your pick of the various sites. A builder may come along and make his choice, but it does not necessarily mean that houses are built one after another according to the numbers of the houses to be erected in the street.
I have in mind a case which I know well. It relates to a piece of land in my constituency of which I am a trustee. It is a trusteeship for a charity and, therefore, the land will not bear tax, but that fact does not in the least vitiate the argument, because a similar piece of land might be developed in the same way by a private landowner. Over 20 years ago this field was developed by making a
circular boulevard between one highway and another, the inside of the circle facing on to the apex of the triangle of the two roads. It is rather a difficult matter to explain without a blackboard. A certain number of people came and selected plots. Eight or 10 houses were built upon land which probably would have held 50 or 60 houses. Development then stopped. People did not come along. The War came and made things more difficult still. After the War, it was found that the building restriction that had been put upon the land, namely, that the houses to be erected were to be of a certain high quality, made it very difficult to get the land developed. People at that time did not want to build £1,200, £1,500 or £2,000 houses, the great demand being for smaller villas at less cost. The consequence is that at the present time a large amount of that land has not been let off. The road is there. All that time interest has had to be paid on the money used for making the road, and if the proposed tax had been in force the whole of that time it would have been levied not merely upon the people who had bought houses and were living in them, but upon the undeveloped land belonging to the owner who had made the road. Under this proposal no deduction whatever can be made from the site value of the road owing to the expenditure upon the road. This seems to be a simple and a clear case where the owner is not receiving due and just credit for the money and labour put into the land.
4.0 p.m.
I will take another case. Roads are not immediately taken over by local authorities. Very often they will not take them over until the roads are practically built up, and when they do, they put a dedication charge upon the owner of the site in respect of the frontage and very often he has to pay large sums to a corporation for them to make up the roads according to their specification. I believe that in some cases the owner is at liberty to make up the road himself to their satisfaction, but this is very rarely done. It is usually done by the local authority and the costs are divided. A man, for instance, has bought his site and built his house, and the site value is so much. He is assessed accordingly. Then the next quinquennial valuation
comes along. In the meantime he has had to spend, say, £100 for dedication charge. He will then have his site valued, because the road is improved, and he will have to pay the tax. That is a most flagrant case, because the man will definitely have to pay tax on the money that he has had to pay over to the corporation in making a road satisfactory to the corporation. All these cases are very unfair, and the only answer we get is that it is impossible from a practical point of view to make a valuation of what the road has cost. It may be impracticable to go back into long past history, but surely it is not without the bounds of possibility to put in some reasonable time limit and to put the onus of proof on the owner to show what he has spent on the road before he becomes liable to the tax on his own expenditure. It surely is not more difficult to value the land without the road than it is to value it without the sewers. The Solicitor-General told us that sewers have to come out. The valuation must really be based upon the ground that the owner has got or the amount per yard at which it has been sold. In that amount per yard there is put in both the cost of the road and of the sewers. The Solicitor-General says that it is necessary to take out the cost of the sewers, because they are a work which it not to be taxed, but that the cost of the road is to remain in.
There was one point I did not understand in the Solicitor-General's speech with regard to sewers. Perhaps he will be good enough to explain what is the position if the local authority has not got a sewer near. I know that a local authority is not compelled to bring sewers beyond a certain distance, and that owners who have developed sites have had to create their own sewerage works and septic tanks, and years later have had to connect them compulsorily with the corporation's main sewers. I knew a case in which an owner had to pay to a corporation a very large sum of money towards the expense of bringing a main sewer to his land—land which did not belong to him. Is he to get no credit for expenditure of that sort? All these questions with regard to roads present an absolutely unanswerable case. I hope that the House will support this Amendment. There was a second Amend
ment, as to which I believe there is some doubt, and I will pass it by so as not to risk offending, but the object of it was that if the road had been made by the local authority, then the landowner should not get any credit for the expenditure of the local authority. My third point is the one that leads up to the words:
And except any buildings, erections, and works in so far as they are necessary for the reclamation of land or the protection thereof from flooding or for maintaining the stability of the unit.
This is not, perhaps, quite such a usual case as that of roads. The usual case is where the landowner has made an invasion of the territory of the sea, and after the expenditure of money has brought sandhills, mud flats and wastes into use and created solid ground upon which man can make his dwelling; also where the landowner, instead of making his invasion of the sea, has resisted the invasion of the sea by making sea-walls and protecting the land. These cases will necessarily occur mostly round our sea coasts. I wonder what would be the position of this country now if there had not been created round our coasts the beautiful seaside resorts and watering places to which people of all classes go for enjoyment and health. If it had not been for private enterprise in building I cannot see how we could have had these resorts at all. Even to-day one cannot imagine a little rural district council suddenly saying without any backing, "We will create a great seaside resort."
Money spent by individual landowners has made the seaside resorts around the country. Take the case of Eastbourne. There is that little old town in the middle, the old foreshore and the ramshackle houses. That is all that there was. Can anyone imagine that the rural district council of old Eastbourne would have developed the beautiful town that Eastbourne is now, with its long sea wall and esplanades? It is ridiculous to try to imagine it. Yet expense of that sort is to receive no credit whatever from the Government or in the valuation. The proposal of the Bill is not only unjust as far as the past is concerned, but disastrous as far as the future is concerned. You will never get such development going on in the future while there are these threats of taxation. If the Bill
passes in its present form there will be no new seaside resorts and watering places, because no one will pour out money simply to be taxed. The rural district councils representing a few little cottages down a cove, how are they to start to develop a seaside resort? It is impossible.
These cases show that the Bill and the form of valuation proposed are grossly unfair. But, really, the most ridiculous case of all that the Solicitor-General pointed out to us in our last discussion was the case of expenditure for the stability of the land. That means that where on a hillside it is desirable to make a road for development, not only have you to make a much more expensive road by cutting into the hillside, but you get no credit at all for building a retaining wall to prevent the hillside from sliding on to the road. That again is very expensive work. It is extraordinary that if the site is a flat site and you put a wall round it, the cost is something which you deduct, but if it is a retaining wall which has cost a great deal more money you have to take the whole of the expenditure that has been made upon it and add that to the site value. It is most unfair; it is impossible to see the equity of it at all.
I said earlier that it might be necessary to provide some form of time limit, and even to put on the owner the onus of proving the expenditure. But if these things are done, although the whole principle of the Bill is one to which I object, the grossest unfairness with regard to taxing owners' improvements would be abolished. The answer of the Government is "We must have the tax. We cannot have the tax unless we are unfair, and therefore we will be unfair. We must have the tax. We cannot have the tax without being illogical; therefore we will be illogical. We must have the tax. We cannot have it with equity; therefore we will abolish equity." Unless the Government can meet us in some way they stand condemned for passing proposals based upon illogicality, injustice and inequity.

Major GEORGE DAVIES: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. TURTON: It is rather amazing that a Finance Bill which was introduced with the words "God gave the land to
the people" should contain a provision to make it necessary for God also to have given the roads to the people. I cannot find any justification for an owner of land being taxed for having made roads upon his land. I want to draw attention to one concrete instance in a place four miles from a large town in Yorkshire. There there was a plot of ground which, when the owner took it, was worth £7,000. He built a road through the plot in order that the land might be developed. That road cost £5,000, and is half a mile long. He built the road at a time when there was a prospect of development around that town. That development has now gone on at a slower rate, but he has built houses at each end of that road, which adjoins two main roads. He has built 10 houses, and as they are leasehold he obtains a ground rent from the plots of £5 per house. Therefore he has obtained a sum of £50 from his development of the area.
The assessment of those plots and of all contiguous plots will now bring the value of the whole site up to some £20,000. Unless amended the Bill will result in this: That man has spent £12,000 on that site. He is now receiving £50 a year, and it is very doubtful whether in the near future he will be able to build more houses or receive a larger amount. The tax on these sites will be 1d. in the £ upon £20,000, that is £83 a year. That owner is being punished for his efforts; he has to lose £33 a year, although he has spent £12,000 in developing that site. I can hardly believe that the Government can justify taxation of an owner who has spent money in that way, certainly for his own welfare, but also for the welfare of the community at large. There is no justification for the taxation of improvements which have been made at the expense of the owner and for which an owners draws little or no advantage.
In our earlier discussions the Solicitor-General drew attention to the definition of a road. I should say that that road in question in Yorkshire is not open to the public, because there are only 10 houses built on it, but it is open to the occupiers of the several houses and those who wish to go upon it. From the speech of the learned Solicitor-General in Committee I thought he intended that the
road should not be a road under this Bill, but if one looks at the definition of a road in Clause 27 one finds that "'road' does not, in relation to any land unit, include any road which the occupier alone is entitled to use." That cannot be said of this particular road, because it is allowed to be used not only by the occupier of the unit but by the occupier of the adjoining units. The Bill's definition of "road" will not help the owner or occupier of that land, or the owner of many other such roads in Yorkshire.
I have confined myself to one instance because it is better to get a clear view as to how this tax will work. Throughout the country the effect of this tax on improvements and on roads will mean a cessation in the development of land and the making of roads, because owners will wait until the local authority makes a road, and at the present time local authorities are not very swift to develop plans and make roads as they have very little funds with which to do the work. I view the Bill as a whole with the gravest misgivings, but this particular Sub-section is one of the grossest injustices the Government could have devised. I hope they will take some steps to exclude improvements made by an owner and remedy the injustice which will be done in cases such as I have cited.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: I should have thought that on this point we should have been blessed with an Amendment from the Government, because when this question was before the Committee the Solicitor-General said that he was prepared to consider it and to put something in on the Report stage which would cover really hard cases. We do not expect very much from the old brooms on the Treasury Bench, but the Solicitor-General is a new broom, and a very effective broom, and I, for one, thought that he would have cleared this mess away. There is a great deal in the Amendment, although hon. Members above the Gangway have not gone far enough, inasmuch as they do not mention roads which have been taken over by the local authority. The Solicitor-General explained to us, when this question was being considered in Committee, that sewage and drainage which are part of a local authority's scheme can be in
cluded in a valuation. But this cannot apply to the case of a road. It may be intelligible as far as public roads are concerned, but it is not intelligible as regards private roads. The test of a road is that it is used by a number of people. Suppose a man erects a factory and builds a road, as long as nobody else but the owner of the factory uses it, it remains a private road, but if he allows a factory to be built at the other end of the road, say a cheese-making factory, and that road enhances the value of the land, the owner of the first factory will be pounced upon. The effect of it is that as soon as a road becomes of use to the community, or to a part of the community, it becomes part of the valuation and the owner is taxed.
I cannot believe that it is the intention that a man who buys land at £50 an acre and spends £600 on roads to improve it should, in consequence, have to pay a tax on £650. It is putting such a man on the same plane as the man who benefits by the construction of underground railways which are being built at the present time around London and which improve the value of land considerably, through no merit or labour on the part of the owner himself. I press the Solicitor-General to consider this question of roads. There will be a period of two or three years before the Bill comes into operation, and I hope during that time that the Government will devise a scheme by which this injustice can be remedied. It is not the policy even of the Labour Government to tax these improvements, and indeed, by doing so they are running counter to what they have many times proclaimed as their policy. The Foreign Secretary, who stands in an avuncular relation to most hon. Members of the Labour party, said at Cromer in 1922—
The Labour party holds that it is suicidal for the nation to penalise by increased taxation occupiers of land who effect improvements which add to its value.
At Newcastle, in 1923, the same right hon. Gentleman said:
If a farmer increases the value of his land by erecting improved buildings or draining the land, the rates are immediately increased. That is a form of taxation with which I do not agree.
I am glad that this Amendment has been put down by hon. Members above the Gangway, because it shows that they also have changed their policy somewhat. The right hon. Member for Croydon (Sir W.
Mitchell-Thomson) 20 years ago was vehement in opposing the increment value tax. I am glad hon. and right hon. Members have put their names to this Amendment, because they are the same hon. and right hon. Members who introduced and passed the Derating Act. In that Measure, they never took any care to differentiate between personal improvements and other improvements. It is true they were derated to the value of 75 per cent., but rates are still laid upon improvements, although by the Derating Act they imposed rates upon other subjects which were not industrial. I press the Government that for once, on a point where the policy of the three parties is agreed, they should take the sense of the House and try to amend this Clause in a satisfactory manner.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Stafford Cripps): The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) has referred to my statement in the Committee stage. It only shows the real difficulties of this situation. I stated:
I have already said about there being a very real difficulty here, and that we do appreciate it, and that although we have tried to cover what we consider the relevant and fair cases it may be that some form of Amendment can be devised which would still make the valuation a practical and a practicable thing and would yet, perhaps, cover some cases of hardship which might still be left in the Bill; and if any hon. Members in any part of the House can suggest to us words which are genuinely intended to remedy any defect that there may he, and do not wreck the valuation, then we shall be perfectly prepared to consider them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th June, 1931; col. 1101, Vol. 253.]
The trouble is that no form of words has been suggested, as far as I know, which achieve the object. That is the difficulty. In all these cases of valuation, depending on the view of the valuer, cases of hardship may arise, and anyone who has had any experience of valuations knows that however carefully you try to safeguard the position as regards valuation, you are always liable to get cases of hardship. On the other hand, if you do what was done under the 1909–10 legislation, you might reduce the Bill to an absurdity. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is that already!"] If that is the case, the hon. Member need not worry. We do not think it is, but we appreciate the fact that time after time hon. Members opposite have tried to make it an absurdity, and that is why we have to resist so many
Amendments. We also realise that some hon. Members are desirous of assisting in getting a good Bill, although they do not agree with all its provisions. I dealt with the difficulty as regards roads at great length during the Committee stage, and I do not propose to reproduce the arguments I then brought forward. I should like to draw attention to the form of the Amendment. It would, of course, have no effect at all standing alone, and it is the second Amendment which you, Mr. Speaker, said you would have to consider as to whether it was in order, which is intended to be the operative Amendment. Apart from the second Amendment, this Amendment could have no meaning at all.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think it would be useful if I say now that the second of the two Amendments would be in order if the words "and works" were omitted from the words it is proposed to insert.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: The paragraph would then read:
any buildings, erections, roads, or works except roads executed by a local authority.
That would have no meaning at all, because roads made by a local authority could not possibly form part of a unit. A road made by a local authority would be the property of the local authority and could not possibly be on a unit which belongs to someone else. Some of the arguments put forward arise from a failure to keep in mind the fact that what we are dealing with in this Clause are the precise conditions of the unit, which is a unit of occupation and not a unit of ownership. The unit under the Bill is a unit of occupation, and although there may be one owner of a building estate that estate would be many units under the Bill. The probability is that each plot or each house will form a separate unit as soon as it is sold or disposed of. When you are considering these units two circumstances may arise, either a bit of the road, half the width of the road fronting a particular house, would come into the unit, or none of it. If it is a local authority road there would be none of it in the unit; if it is a road which remains the property of the owner, which is not leased or sold, it will not come into the unit at all.
In the great majority of cases when you are dealing with a unit which has a house upon it and a road in front of it,
through which access is obtained to the house, a variety of circumstances may arise. In one road the plot may have a bit of the road, but in the next road the plot may end where the road begins, but all will have the common feature of having some form of access. As a matter of valuation it will not make any substantial difference whether that plot has on it a bit of the road as part of the plot or whether it has not. The only importance, from the point of view of the valuation of that site, is that there is access to it, and how that access is obtained really does not affect the principle of valuation. I think it was the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) who spoke as if the cost were related to the value, in the case which he gave. He suggested that, because there were a number of plots worth £5, some of which had been sold for £5, while a great number of them were vacant plots which could not be let at all, therefore you could take £5 as the value, and multiply it by the number of plots. That assumption must be false from the valuation point of view, because, ex hypothesi, you cannot get £5 for the other plots. Anybody coming along to see what would be the amount which you would get upon a sale in the open market, would say that it would obviously not be £5, because that sum is unobtainable in the open market. The value might be £2 or £3 or £4, or whatever price were fixed upon it. There is no necessary relationship, either with what has been fixed as the price of the large number of unlet plots, or between the amount of money that has been expended upon the work and the value of the land which is served by those works. When one is considering cases that have been put up by hon. Members, where plots were small portions of land served by roads, whether the roads were made by a local authority or by anybody else, the only thing we are really considering, as in all questions of valuation is access.

Mr. TURTON: Surely the adjacent plots will be taken into consideration in evaluating the property.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Certainly.

Mr. TURTON: What would be the value of a plot which is unsaleable, next door to a plot valued at £5,000?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am afraid I cannot give an answer as a valuer. From the small knowledge I have of plot-vending methods, I can only say that, if there is any sale of a plot at £5, at the date when the valuation is made the value cannot be £5, because it is the sale-price which regulates the Value that is put on it. The hon. Member will know quite well that the actual sale prices of other plots are very seldom taken into account by arbitrators in compensation and similar cases, because of the unreliability of relating a sale which has taken place on one plot to the circumstances of all the other land which surrounds it. These matters of valuation are matters of general knowledge and information. The only real point as regards valuation is access: the removal, from the particular site, of the value of the bit of road which is on it, would not, in most cases, make any very material difference. It is not a question of adding to the site value the cost of the road, because that is not done. What you do is that you say: "Here is a site which has an access—"

Sir S. ROBERTS: Will the hon. and learned Member allow me to put a question. Is not the cost of the road and of the sewers added into the price at which the land is sold and has it not an effect upon the ground rent?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. Baronet is quite right in one sense. What I am trying to point out is, that the suggestion here is not that, as regards a general building scheme, you deduct the cost of the general area, but as regards a particular unit, leaving all the surrounding units in the state in which they are, you take off that particular unit the particular road which is on it. The only result of that, if it has any result, is to remove that amount of access. That is to say, we must assume that this site is approached by a road only half the width, if the owner owns the bit of road coming in from both sides. From the point of view of valuation, the removal from the unit of the bit of road will not make much difference. What hon. Members have in mind is another question altogether. They say: "I do not want you to assume that all the other units are in the condition in which they are, if the other units which
have the roads upon them give the access." I think what hon. Members have in mind is that I want to take out of the unit the little bit of road, and I do not want the road to be there at all, on either side of the unit. I suggest that that is what they really have in mind. If the hon. Baronet is thinking that the road will affect the value of the unit as a site, I can tell him that it would have no such effect in devaluing the unit as he suggests. The only thing it would do, would be to make it almost impossible in some cases to arrive at a differentiation between, for instance, a unit which has a road just off it and a unit which has a road just on it.

Sir S. ROBERTS: May I put this point to the learned Solicitor-General? Say the land was worth £100, and that £100 was spent by the owner in making a road and a sewer on his frontage. That land would be worth £200, and the ground rent would be based on that, or upon the price of the plot. How the valuers can, from a practical point of view, proceed without taking into consideration the price of the plot or the amount of the ground rent, I cannot see.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I was dealing with the case of a unit where there was a development which was occupied by three plots. On each of these three plots the price of the land is £33, and the price of the surface and other works is £33, making £66 in all. That is a vested interest. If you remove from one of these units nothing but the bit of road on it, you will not in fact be devaluing that site to the extent of the work that has been done there, because it will be a unit with access to it, just the same as the others. It will have its sewer, drains, electric light and water and other things. The only thing is that the road in front of it will be half the width of the road in front of the others, but that is not making half the difference to the valuer. You could take away the whole road and the access, and in nearly every case that would have an effect, not on the unit itself, but on the adjoining unit.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I should like to draw the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to a point which may have escaped his notice, which is
that he proposes to deal with that aspect of the matter in Sub-section (4).

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The point has not escaped my notice, and it will be dealt with when I come to it. First of all, I am dealing with this anomaly of cases where a road ceases to be owned and occupied as part of a unit, and eases where the road belongs to the local authority. I do not think the hon. Baronet can succeed by his Amendment in doing what he has in mind, namely doing away with all access to the site altogether, and not merely removing that part of the plot which is on the site.

Sir S. ROBERTS: May I ask the learned Solicitor-General if what he really means is that, in valuing a plot, the cost of the road will not be taken into account in the valuation? If there is a ground rent of £5, and half of that is due, to roads and sewers it will not be treated as if it were £2 10s. and then multiplied?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I cannot answer that.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: This is the "Disappearing Road Act."

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: All I am suggesting is that all he takes off any of the units by his Amendment is the road, and nothing else. He is not taking out sewers or services. In cases where there is no road, there would probably be a smaller ground rent, but he would not be taking off £2 10s. of the £5 ground rent. That is why I suggest that, whatever be the object of his Amendment, the Amendment does not carry it out.

Sir S. ROBERTS: The object is clear, at any rate!

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I quite appreciate that the object is clear. The existence of the question of how you are to treat the surrounding plots, is a very good reason why when the House comes to that Amendment I shall also with good reason show how those plots should be treated.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. and learned Solicitor-General has always been ready to give us an answer on the merits of the case, but there are one or
two considerations in this answer with which we are not satisfied on this side of the House. We want to put the case, to see if he can look at it from the point of view which seems of importance to us. I take first of all the argument that he himself has adduced, dealing with the case of several plots along a road. If I am right in understanding the position, it was this. One of those plots would be a land unit. It would contain one-half of the road ex adverso, and all that would happen, if this Amendment were passed, would be that that particular bit of road would be considered non-existent, and access to the plot by road could only be made as far as the boundary of adjoining plots. That is quite true. Even so far as that is concerned I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that a good deal of difference would be made. Many of us have practical knowledge of streets of houses which have been built and when a plot has been sold or feued the purchaser or feuer has acquired the road to the extent of one-half ex adverso. If that half of the road were removed the house would be to a large extent uninhabitable because it could only be reached with great discomfort. To replace that half of the road would involve an expenditure in a great many cases equal to one-half of the whole of the land value of the plot. We know these facts from actual accounts of building that is taking place. While the Solicitor-General was speaking I made a rapid calculation. I took out the amount of money expended on the development of an estate as a whole. When the land was developed, it was worth about £7,300. The cost of the road making came to about £3,400, or nearly half. Making all allowances for corners and for places where there would be no special access road required, I came to the conclusion that although not quite half of the value of the average plot would be due to the cost of making half of the road to it, it would be very nearly one-half, say about nine-twentieths instead of ten-twentieths. In other words, the real value of a plot of land would be much reduced if you could assume that the portion of road immediately opposite it was not there.
Let me put this point to the Solicitor-General. In his criticism of the Amendment he asked if it was intended to remedy and not to wreck. We do not suggest that we like the Bill. We have never concealed the fact that we dislike it. But this Amendment is not intended to make the whole valuation scheme impossible. It is an endeavour to do what is difficult to those who have not the resources of a Government Department at their disposal, namely to produce something which may be accepted or at any rate be acceptable as a basis for remedying what we regard as a distinct injustice. As far as the second of these three concatenated Amendments is concerned, it is quite true, of course, and we realise it, that in most cases where a public authority makes a road, that road could not be part of the land unit. But that does not destroy the plan of the first Amendment and the second Amendment was only put in there in case some such possibility might exist as that of a road constructed by, but not owned by a public authority.
Supposing that there are these difficulties which have been indicated with regard to individual land units where a building estate has been cut up, we put it to the Solicitor-General that where there are cases of hardship, we have a right to look to the Government to devise a way out of those difficulties, if the way which we propose proves not to be practicable. I admit, at once, that the moment you begin to deal with a building estate as a congeries of land units, you make the matter infinitely more complicated, but that is not our fault. We are not the makers of the machinery incorporated in the Bill. I think it would be better if the building estate were treated as being developed as a whole and, if we tried to make some allowance for the whole cost of roads, and then allocated the allowance so made over the different parts of the estate and on the different land units. I am only putting that forward as a suggestion after listening to the Solicitor-General. What we on this side are concerned to emphasize is, that the responsibility rests with the Government to meet what is, on broad principles, an admitted injustice and one likely to produce bad social results.
I do not think that the Solicitor-General could or would deny that there
are hard cases, but I am not going to deal with hard eases like those of villages, such as Thorpeness which was completely constructed out of the marsh by its owner and on which that owner received no profit at all. I do not want to rest my submission on individual hard cases. I would much sooner rest it, as the Mover of the Amendment did, on great classes of land throughout the country which in the aggregate are of immense importance. With regard to those classes of land, there cannot be any doubt that some allowance ought to be made for improvements made by owners. It is perfectly obvious that money expended upon roads represents a kind of improvement which has a value different from that of houses on individual plots. But road improvement has a value of its own and road-making should be encouraged and not discouraged. Take the case of an estate which I have had analysed. The site was worth about £1,000 an acre and the cost of making roads was about £500 an acre. Half the value of that developed site was not due to the community, or to any cause other than the enterprise of those who developed it. The allowances made under Schedule A meet to a limited extent the case of building upon a developed estate, but they certainly do not meet the case of road making. As the Bill stands, the more a person spends in road making on a developed estate, the greater the burden which he ultimately has to bear and the heavier the tax upon him. The obvious result is to make every person who develops an estate bend his wits to the task of doing as little road making as possible and from that there is a further inevitable result.
I have dealt already with the unfairness of this proposal. Let me now deal with its social results. I know, having ascertained it since this Bill entered upon the Committee stage, that the Solicitor-General is a genuine believer in some form of land taxation of this kind. For that reason I ask him, in the interest of his own principle, to consider whether something cannot be done to meet our case, not only because of the unfairness involved, but also from the point of view of social results. A tax of this kind will cause everyone who has anything to do with the development of land to try to escape it as much as
possible, by doing as little road making as they can "get away with." It is almost a platitude to state what one result of that will be. It was once said that only Scotsmen could produce a platitude and pass it off as a discovery and I do not pretend that this is a discovery. I suppose it could be described as a glimpse of the obvious. But the fact remains that, as a result of this course, you are going to prejudice nearly all development in the future which is not carried out by local authorities.
What does the Solicitor-General consider to have been almost the worst feature of suburban housing in past years, before town-planning became operative. In connection with the Poor Law Commission, we had to make inquiries throughout the country on this subject We came to the conclusion that all these serried ranks of houses, built on parallel roads, with right-angle roads connecting them, like rows of little boxes, had as bad a social effect on the population as the slums. Those conditions may not have been as bad for the health of the people as the slums, but they were worse for the minds of the people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because of the dull uniformity of these long continuous streets. If hon. Members go about our great towns making the inquiries which I had to make for the Poor Law Commission in those days, they will find that that is a result which no social investigator would deny. Living in a slum may be bad for health, but there is certainly more interest and excitement in a slum than in those long dismal streets and the deadly dullness of the parallel rows of houses. Compared with them, we all welcome the new type of garden suburb. Going in and out of our big cities, I have looked at these new suburbs, and I expect that the Solicitor-General has done the same. Some are better than others; some are very good indeed, but one common characteristic of them is that they have gardens round them which makes them more human than the serried ranks of streets.
Necessarily that feature involves a lot more road-making. There is no question about it. The amount of road in proportion to each house is infinitely greater in the modern suburb than it ever was in the old streets. If we place a burden upon the person who puts his working capital into making roads
and developing the ground, we shall be reversing the whole garden suburb process. I do not say that you can extinguish it. Of course you will not do so. There are Housing Acts and Town Planning Acts to help it, but the influence of this proposal is bound to be strong and it will be exerted in a direction contrary to the whole process which is going on under the Housing Acts and the Town Planning Acts.
If people are going to save money on the roads, then they will build outwards as far as they can on the main roads already existing, and thus we shall have the dismal result of ribbon development which everyone deplores. Everyone who has done social work knows how desirable it is that people when they get out of the towns should be able to get within sight of country fields and green trees as soon as possible, though it is not so easy in the case of London to do so, even along the main roads. But ribbon development spoils the country near to the towns, both for the people living in the towns and for the people living in the country. Again, but for this proposal I believe that in the future development of building estates, instead of having straight lines of roads, the tendency will be to follow the natural features of the ground and make the layout pleasanter than it otherwise would be. This proposal will tend to drive people back again to the old straight roads at right angles to one another, disregarding all the natural features, and crowding the houses more closely together. That will be its inevitable result.
5.0 p.m.
It may be, as I have said, that the second part of our Amendment would be unnecessary, but there is still time to make some alteration in the Bill as it-stands. I am sorry to have taken up so much time, but those who have done any work on this subject have this question very much at heart, and, as the Solicitor-General has objected to this Amendment on one or two other grounds, I may be allowed briefly to answer those objections. He has said that in principle you cannot dissociate the roads in one of these estates from the main road which passes by it. He took the instance of a housing estate off the Great West Road. I suggest as a matter of substance, and not as a debating point, that the hon. and
learned Gentleman could not establish that contention before a Judge whose business it was to get at the essence and substance of the question. Take the case of land near the Great West Road worth £1,000 an acre when developed, half of which value is due to the development of the side roads. The influence of the Great West Road is already discounted in the fact that it has gene towards the creation of the rest of the value of that land. You have allowed for that already. If the existence of the Great West Road adds to the value of the side roads, the contrary is now the case. They are cross entries in the debtor and creditor account between the builder and the community, which cancel out. Broadly speaking, there is nothing substantial in that objection. Nor is there anything substantial in the objection that when it passes out of the hands of the person building and it is bought by someone who occupies it, it does not matter to them who has built the road. What happens is, that you have development cramped and distorted to the extent that this tax takes effect, and that extent may be quite considerable. We are trying to make the Bill a little better and not to kill it by an Amendment. We have not tried to think of something which will make the working of the Act impossible. I do not think that it would make the working of the Act impossible if you put a time limit beyond which you are not to go. A time limit has been inserted in the Bill to the effect that we can go back 10 years in order to find out the purchase price. There ought to be a time limit, otherwise I think the Solicitor-General, if he really believes that he is going to build Jerusalem in this green and pleasant land, is going the wrong way to work by putting a tax on the improvements that people carry out when they are trying to develop estates in the best way under modern conditions.

Sir JOHN SIMON: Might I be allowed to put to the Solicitor-General, in as simple form as I can, a difficulty that many of us feel in regard to this particular point? I am not attempting to make a speech attacking the fundamental principles of the Bill. The Solicitor-General may remember that I did mention this point about roads in
the course of the speech that I made on the Second Heading. I am really concerned how the Bill will work out in certain cases, which are not uncommon. I will put the matter, according to my present understanding, in extremely simple terms, and perhaps the Solicitor-General will correct me if I am wrong. If you take a land unit and proceed to ascertain its value under the Bill, one of the things which must very often be quite a material element in making that unit valuable, and which every valuer would regard as an important element, is the presence of roads, if not inside the land unit at any rate bordering immediately upon it. Nobody can doubt that that is so. As I understand the Bill, it proposes that the same value is to be put whether the adjoining road has been made by the expenditure of the owner or has been made by public expenditure.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL indicated assent.

Sir J. SIMON: I understand that the Solicitor-General agrees. Then we may take it that this is a Bill which proposes to put the same value in pounds sterling upon a land unit of a particular size and position which owes a material part of its value to the presence of an adjoining road, without allowing for the difference where the road has been made by the expenditure of a private owner or has been made out of the expenditure of the community. With that, I think, the Solicitor-General agrees.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL indicated assent.

Sir J. SIMON: He indicates that that is so. The next thing that occurs to me is this, and may I illustrate the difficulty? I put it purely by way of analogy, by considering the words which immediately follow in paragraph (a, 1) which have to do with a sea wall or an embankment or something to keep floods out of a land unit. If what the Solicitor-General has assented to is right, it seems to me to follow in exactly the same way that unless the occupier of the land unit behind the sea wall is also the occupier of the sea wall, even if the sea wall has been made by the owner out of his own pocket the value to be put for the purposes of the tax on the land unit behind the sea wall
is to be exactly the same whether the sea wall has been made out of public funds or by the owner of the land. That seems a very difficult thing to justify. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman was quite right when he said that those who were responsible for the Act of 20 years ago—may I say, because I occupied at that time the position which the Solicitor-General now occupies, that I look with genuine admiration on the way that he helps us in this Debate—put in a provision which says that in arriving at value you deduct
Any part of the total value which is proved to the Commissioners to be directly attributable to works executed, or expenditure of a capital nature. … incurred bona fide by or on behalf of or solely in the interests of any person interested in the land for the purpose of improving the value of the land as building land.
That ought to be allowed for. I could understand the Solicitor-General saying: "I do not want to have a very complicated Act, because it will be very difficult to work it," but there is such a thing as plain justice. How can it go forth to the country that the admitted principle of this Finance Bill in this respect is this: "True it is that this plot of land owes part of its value to the fact that there is an adjoining road, but for the purpose of the tax upon it it does not matter two-pence whether the road has been made by the owner of the land or by the ratepayers of the country."
May I be allowed to put the matter in a slightly different form, and in a way which appears simple? Take the case of an area which, when it has been developed for building purposes, will be big enough to accommodate quite a number of houses, not necessarily crowded together. It will ultimately produce quite a number of good building plots. It may be in connection with an area so large that until the roads are made through it and across it no building plots which are created within its boundary will be saleable. The owner of such an estate, which may be ripe for development, may, and very often does, let the whole of the area on a lease for 99 years or something of the kind to a second person who will himself make the roads, the sewers and other communications before he proceeds to offer the different building plots to the various builders, and the like. Is it not a very difficult thing to justify that you should
say to such a building owner or to the man who takes over for a consideration the building lease: "You may spend your money on these roads if you like, that is your look-out, but when you have done so, although it is proved to demonstration that it is only by spending your money on these roads that the plots have acquired their value, we mean to tax those plots exactly as if the roads had been made at the public expense"?
The simplest of all cases to take—it is a case which the Solicitor-General and I constantly use when we are discussing such things in another place—is to assume two cases side by side. Assume the case of a building plot of a certain size, a certain value and with certain amenities, which owes a material part of its value to the fact that roads have been made on it or around it by the owner of the property. Assume a second case of an exactly similar plot, of exactly similar size and of exactly similar value, where the roads adjoining and leading up to it have been made at the public expense. Is it really the principle of this Bill that the value to be put on these two identically similar plots which in one case is due to the expenditure of the owner and in the other is due to the expenditure of the public, is to be exactly the same?

Mr. LOCKWOOD: I should like to reinforce the arguments of the last speaker by giving, for the benefit of the Solicitor-General, particulars of some practical experience in the development of land. I should like to say, at the outset, that my remarks and the remarks of the last speaker and other remarks that I have heard to-day are in no way directed to destroying the Bill. They are directed to putting into the wording of the Bill such provisions as will make the Bill practicable when it comes to be worked. I have listened to the remarks of the Solicitor-General in answer to arguments from this side on a previous occasion and I become bewildered when I think of what the consequences will be when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament and has to he construed. Even the certificate upon which the learned Attorney-General stated, a few days ago, we could not build the House of Commons, might be worth or might provide the money with which it could be built. The Solicitor-
General seemed to have some difficulty with that matter the other day. In regard to the question of roads, I will give a practical illustration which will show the difficulties, the inequities and injustices of the attitude of the Solicitor-General in refusing to consider the Amendment.
I am interested in an estate development in Morecambe. We purchased several fields abutting upon a main road. They were ordinary agricultural holdings, consisting of six enclosures. There was only one road abutting upon the land, a main road, and we had to incur precisely the kind of expenditure which the last speaker so clearly pointed out. Before any question of sale arose we had to make a series of roads. We made three entrances into the land, we made cross roads and we made crescents. We did everything to make the estate a modern developed building estate. What did that entail? Let me say, for argument's sake, that we purchased the land for £3,000. We have taken out of our pockets at least £2,000 for the making of roads, channeling and sewering. The consequence is that the value of that land is at least the original purchase price, plus the whole of the expense, and the interest outstanding, on the development. Now, the Solicitor-General comes along and says: "Not only will you pay tax on the value of the land as you purchased it, but I am going to tax you on the value of the cost of the roads."
Let us for argument's sake say that the total cost was £5,000. What is the consequence to an individual who takes such a site, not from any sordid motives of extraordinary profit but in order to make a development in that area? The consequence is that he is going to be taxed on the whole of the £5,000. If the owner of that estate had only paid £3,000, he would have been taxed upon that, and if he had kept the balance of £5,000 in his own hands in the form of War Loan or any other form of property of that nature, he would have escaped the tax. I would remind the Solicitor-General that property in the eyes of the law takes many forms. Here is a clear illustration of an injustice. Perhaps it would not be so serious if the matter stopped there, but the effect of this inequity will be to stop developments of the nature of which I have spoken. If for that reason alone the
Solicitor-General ought to give sympathetic consideration to the Amendment, which would not only bring about more equity but would preserve in our system of taxation a principle under which development would not be hindered.

Mr. CADOGAN: The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) has stated our case very clearly, and I only wish that some of his colleagues had given us as much assistance on this Bill, in which case it would not have passed its Second Heading. We are trying to prevent the Bill being placed on the Statute Book, but we are not, by these Amendments, trying to reduce it to an absurdity, but to rescue it from its present absurdities and to promote it to a condition in which it will operate with rather less injustice. The case with regard to roads has been spoken of by several previous speakers, but on the question of improvements, making up levels, building retaining walls, and so on, I would remind the hon. and learned Solicitor-General of what he said on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. I have not refreshed my memory as to his exact words, but I think he said that the site would not be a site at all until the owner got busy on it and made improvements. I should have thought that that was a dangerous argument for him to use, be-cause he maintains that the value is being created by the community.
It seems most inequitable that allowances should not be made for improvements of this nature. In this Bill, as soon as you endeavour to introduce any element of justice, equity or common sense, the argument is at once used that the Bill is unworkable. That has been the argument on the opposite side, and particularly by the learned Solicitor-General—that unless you inflict gross in justice on a large section of the community, this Bill is reduced to an absurdity. I think that is a most powerful argument on our side. I am afraid the hon. and learned Gentleman would repeat the remark which was made by the right hon. Lady the Minister of Labour last night, that the force of circumstances has driven him to dishonest courses. I press these Amendments, because I consider that if they are not persisted in, great injustice and inequity will remain in the Bill.

Lord ERSKINE: The case put forward by various hon. Members on this side in regard to these owners' improvements has not been met by the Government. The Solicitor-General always speaks very well and gives arguments which are well thought out, but he does not always produce arguments which are exactly to the point, and it is a very high tribute to his intelligence to say that the arguments that he brings forward are usually some answer where a real answer is impossible. I do not think that even the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren), whom I see in his place, desires to see all owners' improvements taxed. In fact, I think the pure milk of the single taxers' creed does not allow of owners' improvements being left out.
We heard this afternoon that the Solicitor-General, on an earlier occasion, I think in Committee, suggested that if words could be found which would not wreck the Bill, he in his turn would be prepared to consider those words and to meet our case. I suggest to him that it is not as a rule the Opposition which should put forward words to meet what is obviously a gross injustice. My right hon. Friend on the Front Bench has already said that the Opposition have not got the advantage of the great ability of the Civil Service or of the Government draftsmen behind them, and although I think we, on this side, make rather a better show with our Amendments than sometimes hon. Members below the Gangway on this side do, nevertheless it is not fair for the spokesman of the Government to say," We really admit that there is an injustice here, and if you, the Opposition, can put forward any words which we think will suit, we are prepared to consider them."
The Government should go a good deal further. A great many hon. Members opposite who have been listening to the Debate must have realised that there is a ease to be met here and that there are injustices that will occur. I do not think that any Government should really defend one of its first-class Measures, as this undoubtedly is, by saying, "We realise that under our proposals there will be great injustices to a large number of people, but unless there are injustices, we are afraid the Bill will not work."

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The Noble Lord must not misquote me in that way. I am sure that I said nothing like that.

Lord ERSKINE: I realise that if we take the actual statements made by the Solicitor-General, they do not quite bear that interpretation. I was not actually referring to any individual remarks of the Solicitor-General, but to the general idea which has run all through these Debates that "We know that in certain cases this Bill will work unjustly, but because the Bill will not work unless it works unjustly, we are sorry, but the population have got to bear the injustices." Although I do not say that the Solicitor-General said that in actual words—he is far too clever to say anything of the sort, because that would wreck his Bill—nevertheless, during the whole of these Debates that kind of argument has been in the background.
Hon. Members opposite who have been in this controversy for many years will, I am sure, agree that the old Undeveloped Land Duty had a very great deal to do with the tremendous slowing down of housing operations in this country before the War, and I understand that that is generally admitted, even by the authors of the Act of 1909–10, but from the remarks that we have heard to-day from this side of the House, I am not at all sure that the taxation of these owners' improvements will not have the very detrimental effect on the development of sites and, therefore, on the development of housing, that the old Undeveloped Land Duty had from 1909 to 1914. The right hon. Member for Cam-borne (Mr. Leif Jones) gave a great many examples which went to show that you would not have so much development if you were going to tax all the money that the owners of sites put into those sites to make them more valuable, because obviously you would not have so many people prepared to venture their money in sites if they knew that the more money they spent in developing sites, the more they would be taxed. Therefore, in my view, there is going to be a great slowing down of housing owing to the operations of this Act, if indeed it ever passes the valuation stage and becomes an Act.
I would like to point out another matter. Do the Government really propose
to tax the improvements, we will say, that have been made in shipyards? A great many shipyards—in fact, I suppose, all of them—have to reclaim very large amounts of land and have to spend a great deal of money in making the slips upon which they build their ships. They often have to reclaim a large amount of that land from the sea or land that would be covered by the sea at high tide. That is an extremely expensive operation, and yet apparently under the Government's proposals all the money which the shipyards have put into building these slips is going to add to their value, and therefore they will all be taxed upon the capital that has been put into their business. The more we go on and the more we examine the details of this Bill, the more extraordinary it becomes that the Government should propose to tax all these improvements. We have had a certain amount of debate upon these matters in the past, and unless we had had the Guillotine, we should have had a great deal more, but up to now these owners' improvements and the whole question as to whether or not they should be included in the valuation have not had that amount of time and that expert opinion brought to bear upon them which in normal and proper times they would have had.
For these reasons, I think the Government should go further than they have gone up to the present. They merely come down here and say, "We are not able to accept any of your Amendments, because, if we put them in, the Bill will not work." They have also had to admit during this Debate that there will be many gross injustices in certain cases. The Government exists not only to bring forward legislation, but to bring forward fair and adequate legislation, and it is no answer to our complaints to say, "The Bill will not work if we are going to be just." The Government, with the array of talent that they have behind them, and with the very able assistance which every Government receive from the Civil Service, should go back and see whether they cannot meet the very obvious and real case that has been made against the Bill. After all, this is the Report stage of the Bill, and there is no other opportunity for the Government to rectify their own muddle.
This Bill will pass into law, and there will be the valuation, and it will be made with all these admitted imperfections in it. In the past the Courts have often said very bitter things about this House. They have said that we pass slipshod legislation, which they find it extremely difficult to interpret; and indeed they have said that the words which we put into Acts of Parliament have come to mean, when they have been interpreted, the exact opposite of what this House intended. I am sure that when this valuation takes place and these injustices are brought to light, it will be found that this Measure will be commented on in the Law Courts in exactly the same way as the various other Acts, on account of the slipshod drafting, and it will be found that the injustices which will be perpetrated under this method of valuing owners' improvements will be such that in a short time the whole of this type of legislation will be swept away.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: The Solicitor-General invariably treats the House with such charm and courtesy that the House does not always realise how evasive and cynically immoral his speeches are. But for the War, I should have been trained as a lawyer, but after the way in which the Solicitor-General has spoken, I have come to the conclusion that my time has been better spent. He devoted his speech to showing how difficult it would be to attach the value of a portion of a road to any particular plot of land. There can be no real difficulty about ascertaining the cost of constructing a street and about apportioning that cost among the houses built in the street. The proof of that is self-evident, because in every town when housing estates are being developed, the developer of the estates who makes the road and lays the sewers does, in point of fact, divide up the cost of that work among the people to whom he sells the building plots. Every objection to the Amendment applies with equal force to the case of sewers, the cost of which under the Bill is allowed to be deducted.
The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) put infinitely better and more clearly than I can the point to which I wanted to address myself in regard to the effect which this tax is bound to have upon owners of improvements. I apologise to the House for bringing forward my own
case, but it is the case which I know-best, and it has from time to time been quoted in the House. The estate with which I am connected spends annually a considerable amount of money on developing land. The case of Eastbourne has been referred to. Each year considerable sums are sunk in the lay-out of roads and sewers. Under the Bill every farthing of that money, provided it has been well and wisely spent, and has improved the value of the land, will begin to attract taxation at once. It will continue to attract taxation of an extra Income Tax of not less than 2½d. in the £. When the land is fully developed the whole tax payable will be one-eighth of 1d. in the £. In the case of land which is not quite fully developed, that 2½d. will increase up to 1s. 8d., and where, as not infrequently happens, land does not go off at once, where you have constructed the roads and sewers and sunk money and improved the value of the land, the extra Income Tax payable will amount to something substantially in excess of 1s. 8d. in the £.
It cannot be just that a particular form of investment, which no one will maintain is either undesirable or anti-social in any way, should be subject to a form of taxation which no other form of investment has to undergo. It cannot be maintained that it is just to tax land values created by the industry and efforts of the owner in exactly the same way that you tax land values created by accident, or by the efforts of the community, or by the enterprise of other individuals such as land values which come into being through the extension of a tube service or an omnibus service run by a public company. I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman must admit that it will have extremely undesirable effects. This particular form of investment is not really very profitable. Since these matters were forcibly brought to our notice, I have been going carefully into the accounts and figures of the estate to which I have referred, and there is no doubt that if the estate had in the past devoted the money which it has spent on development to gilt-edged securities, it would be more prosperous than it is. It is a form of investment that has some risk, and if you saddle it with a burden which it will have to pay whether it goes well or badly, the policy of the estate in carrying out development
must come to an, end. It is a fact that it would actually pay me, if the Bill became law, to destroy roads which were made some years ago, or to sever the connection of those roads with existing streets and to let the land return to an agricultural value.
Not only is the taxation of this kind not just but it is rot expedient. I have tried to show the hon. and learned Gentleman that the difficulty which he has maintained exists in valuing the roads does not really exist. The roads can perfectly well be valued, and there can be no difficulty in apportioning the value between the houses. Nor would it be impossible where there is a building estate in course of development, to value the individual pieces of land together, especially when you have regard to the fact that in cases of that kind the bulk of the tax will ultimately fall on the ground landlord. In many of these cases the plots are not sold outright when the houses are built. In the majority of cases a long lease is taken, and in such cases the tenant is held to be the owner, and is responsible for the tax, but he can recover up to one-twelfth of the rent from the ground landlord. In cases of that kind there should be no substantial difficulty about giving relief, and I believe that it is fair, just and expedient that that relief should be given.
We are getting into a very late stage in the discussion of this Bill, and the amount of time which the Government have left to us is very short. It is therefore scarcely reasonable for the Government to leave the Opposition to draft Amendments to save the Government from having injustices in a Bill of this kind. The Amendment is perfectly just, and can be accepted without destroying the principle of the Bill—and in saying that I do not, of course, accept the principle of the Bill. If the Amendment were accepted, the Government would have a better chance, although I do not think it would be a substantial chance, of seeing their Bill survive when they have perished.

Mr. QUIBELL: At first sight, one is inclined to think that there is a good deal of substance in the Amendment, but there are far more difficulties in it than have been dealt with by the Opposition. I was interested in the illustration given by the
Noble Lord of the development of an estate, and, like him, I am not without some experience. How would the Amendment work in a case like the one which came within my purview within the last week or two? A body of men formed themselves into a small company to buy an estate. They then set out to develop the estate. They laid the mere semblance of roads without channels or kerbs, but only with sewers and septic tanks—if indeed they can be Called even that. The number of houses now erected is something like 300, and there is no proper sewerage scheme. They proceed to sell the land on which the houses have been built on terms under which the purchasers agree to pay to the vendors 2s. 6d. per running foot of frontage of the plots of land that they purchase per year for a period of 10 years, and the company reserve to themselves the right to use the money so collected to cleanse the sewers, to repair the roads and to develop other parts of the estate as and when they so determine, without at all entering into any definite commitment to make up the roads. At the end of the 10 years the poor purchaser of the land from the speculative company will find himself in receipt of a notice from the local authority telling him that they propose to take over the road and to put into force the Private Streets Act, and the purchaser will be faced with a bill to meet the requirements of the local authority. I do not know how this Amendment will affect a company like that. Such a company has operated at Peacehaven and at Kimnel Bay, and wherever they have operated they have operated to the disadvantage of the poor purchaser of the land, and indeed of the estate. That is a very bad case where, if there be any question of compensation, the poor people who have been the victims of the company should be compensated.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is exactly the kind of development which our Amendment is intended to prevent. In the case mentioned by the hon. Member, what happens is that in so far as they pay so much per annum to keep up a rotten road, they are encouraged to do so under the First Schedule of this Bill. A person is discouraged from making a decent road because the value of it is added to the value of the land.

Mr. QUIBELL: I have had some experience, and that does not apply in the cases I have in mind. There is another case where the estate developer actually sells the plots of land to the centre of the road, and then makes a charge of a similar character. The Noble Lord who preceded me almost gave the whole case away. I bought a piece of land and built a road, and very foolishly made it up, curbed it, developed it, and made it so that it would comply with the requirements of the local authority. I did what every other business man would do, divided the road into frontages and added the cost of the road and improvements on the estate to the price, plus an ordinary profit, and I cannot see how I have lost anything. There are so many different practices in the laying out of roads. In some cases just pitching is put down, and it is filled in with breeze or gravel, and is then left to be made up when development takes place under the Private Streets Act. Then there is the case where the land is sold right to the middle of the road, and the purchaser of the plot of land has to pay for the road. The original developer of the estate certainly does not pay. He is in a position to hand on the expense, if there is a market; of course, if there is not a market it means that he has been a poor judge and has developed his estate ahead of the demand, and he must take the risk involved in such a proceeding.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: The hon. Member refers to a case in which the original developer passes his burden on in the price which he charges for his building plots. Does the hon. Member think the purchasers of plots ought to pay the same amount of Land Tax irrespective of whether the road is ultimately paid for by them or whether it is made and paid for by the local authority?

Mr. QUIBELL: I have not got the point the Noble Lord is putting.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: In the case which the hon. Member referred to the road is ultimately paid for by the dwellers in the road. The cost of the road is divided up amongst them. They have had to buy their plots, they have built their houses upon them and they have, in addition, to pay for the road. Now they will have to pay a tax on what they have
spent upon the road they will pay exactly the same tax irrespective of whether they have paid for the road or whether the local authority paid for it.

Mr. QUIBELL: But that was not the Noble Lord's point. His point was that the development of estates would be prevented owing to the burdens placed upon those who developed them. His point now is that this cost of development is being passed on and that those to whom it is passed on will have to bear an additional burden of taxation. To that extent it is additional expenditure and involves double taxation. That is a fact, but you cannot have it both ways. It cannot be a burden on the man who develops the estate and at the same time be handed on to the purchaser.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I think the last speaker has made a most valuable contribution to the Debate. The Solicitor-General in his remarks earlier, said that the valuer of the land, in making the valuation, would have some regard to the access to the land, and we are arguing that if the access has been provided by the owner the cost of providing that access should not involve him in having to pay increased taxation. The Solicitor-General says that it does not matter whether the community or the private individual has given the additional value to the land by providing means of access; that, anyhow, the owner should pay. The hon. Member has just cited cases where owners of houses have either made the road themselves or paid cash to have it made, and we say that the tax should not be levied on that portion of the value of the land which they themselves have created. It will come to be realised by these people that it is not merely double taxation but treble taxation, because they have had to buy their land, they have had to pay for their own roads and through their rates they have had to pay for the roads of other people.
It has already been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench that there will be fewer roads as a consequence of this taxation, and I would add that in the development of property the endeavour will be made to make the roads as short and as narrow as possible, and without side walks or pavements, because every one of those factors will come into
the ultimate cost of the road, and if they add to the value of the land they will increase the burden of taxation. I think the Solicitor-General has been a very lucky man in one respect, and that is that no member of the Cabinet was here this afternoon to spot what has happened and make him reverse his decision, because it must be remembered that the Minister of Health—both the present Minister and his predecessors—have been trying to stop ribbon development and trying to get houses built with gardens and open spaces round them, and that is a policy which our proceedings this afternoon will be likely to check. The Minister of Transport has been trying to widen roads and do away with awkward corners, and here we have the Solicitor-General standing up for a policy which will mean narrower roads and awkward corners.
Let me instance the case of a man who built a sea wall to prevent flooding. That wall was destroyed in a recent gale. There is land behind that wall which, in due course, may be of value for building. If that sea wall is left in its present state—that is, destroyed—the value of that sea wall can never be added to the value of the land when it comes to be valued for purposes of this taxation, but if the man spends his own money on putting that sea wall into repair and the land develops afterwards, he will have to pay extra taxation because he has used his money in that way. If he leaves the land as a snipe bog he gets off taxation, but if he develops it in the interest of the country then he has to bear an additional burden. Surely that is not what was wanted, and if any responsible Member of the Government had been present to note the mess into which the Solicitor-General has got them surely the Bill would not be allowed to go through in its present state.
There is another point, affecting scores of people in my own constituency in the west country. In the hilly areas there surrounding walls have to be built; the whole stability of the unit depends on those walls. The value of the wall will undoubtedly be taken into account in valuing the land, although the owner had to build the wall himself. There is no question of God having given the wall.
The man put the wall there, spending his own money on it.

Mr. QUIBELL: He might be owing for it instead of paying for it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I see the speculative builder coming out! [Interruption.] I have many friends who are speculative builders, and I think they will feel the pinch rather quickly when operations begin under this Bill. Not long ago there was a case in my constituency where three or four men bought land and built houses. They told me the value of the land and the value of their houses. The Post Office dug a trench at the bottom of the wall which bounded the small garden in front, in a very steep bit of country. The wall came down and it cost every one of those three or four people more to put the wall up than it cost them originally to buy the land. That wall has helped to make the value of that land and will add to its taxable capacity. We do not dispute that it is fair to put a tax on that part of the value of land which has been given to it by the community—for example, the value given by a road which has been driven into a bit of country by the activities of the community; but we submit that it is not right to make a man pay additional taxation for an increased value which has been given to his land by improvements for which he has had to pay. It is a monstrous injustice that we should have spent so much time in putting this part of our ease so clearly as it has been put to-night and that no responsible Member of the Cabinet should have been present at any period of the Debate to listen to it.

6.0 p.m.

Captain GUNSTON: I cannot help thinking that if other Members of the Government had been present they would have endeavoured to persuade the Solicitor-General to alter his course. We had a most interesting speech from the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell). I feel that in his heart he is really in favour of this Amendment, unless as a speculative builder he does not do his own improvements. Take the case of a company which owned a bit of land with only an apology for a road. Obviously in that case the frontage is of less value than the frontage would be of a properly made-up road, and therefore the value of
that plot would be considerably less. In other words, it would be an advantage to speculative companies not to develop their roads to the fullest extent. Suppose that the owner of this bit of land I have mentioned finds a purchaser, and after a time the local authorities take it over and they say to the purchaser, "You have to make up this so-called road into a proper road." The result is that a very heavy burden falls on the man who has bought that land. Unless this Amendment is accepted you are going to multiply cases of that kind a thousand times all over the country. I know hon. Members opposite are anxious to develop housing, and the last thing the Government wish to do is to multiply the sort of case which has been mentioned this afternoon, but I think that that will happen unless the Financial Secretary can persuade the Solicitor-General to alter his view on this point.
The Solicitor-General got out of the difficulty by a brilliant technical speech about what a valuer would do, but he entirely overlooked the main principle of the Amendment, which is that you do not distinguish between the case where the property has been improved by the community and where the increased value has been created by the man who has improved his property by spending money upon it. I should have thought that every single-taxer would have been in favour of our Amendment, because it is intended to do justice to the man who, by his own enterprise, has improved the property. Let me give a theoretical case. Take, for example, the building of a bridge over the Humber at Hull. Suppose that the bridge is built and a great development takes place in consequence. Of course it would be said that the extra value of that land has been created by the Corporation of Hull, who built the bridge near the harbour, and some of the land on each side of the Humber would be good land for building residential houses. Would it be fair to tax the extra value which has been created, not by the community, but by the building of the bridge? If you substitute roads it will be realised that what is suggested is that you should make no distinction between the value created by the building of the bridge and the making of the roads. That is exactly what we are proposing to deal with in our
Amendment. Suppose that the owner of the property had built the bridge and constructed public highways through his property. In that case the owner would be taxed upon his improvements. Unless this Amendment is accepted you will very seriously curtail the development of houses.
The Solicitor-General is very keen upon this Bill, which, I think, might very well be described as a Bill for the better preservation of the legal profession. The Solicitor-General is not necessarily a great expert on housing, and on this side of the House we pride ourselves upon knowing something about the housing problem. I am not going into the question of whet/her the Land Tax of 1910 did in fact prevent the building of houses, but nobody will deny that there is a very strong suspicion that the fear of that tax curtailed the building of houses. As things stand at present I think we are going to develop the type of buildings which hon. Members opposite want to see. I know that the Solicitor-General has in his constituency one of the worst slums in the country, and I am sure that he would like to see proper amenities developed on that land at Bristol. Take the case of the new garden city which has been started at Bristol. Quite obviously any company that develops garden cities, builds cottages and develops beautiful properties, will not be able to meet the cost of those roads in face of the additional tax, and this will undoubtedly have a great effect in preventing the extension of this excellent form of building houses.
There is a place called Middleton that has been developed very rapidly during the last few years. It started in a very curious way. There was a small property there for sale, and a small professional business man went down and bought some sites. A small community grew up at this place. Later the sea encroached very severely, and the owners of several of those houses clubbed together and found the money to erect groynes in order to keep the sea from ruining the place. In a few years' time other people came to that place and erected houses behind the property of the original owners, further away from the sea, and the result was that the land there became very valuable for building sites. That value has accrued because the sea has
been prevented from encroaching. Those people did not go there to increase the value of the land; they went there simply to spend the rest of their days in comfort, and not for any speculative purposes. What has happened has rather deteriorated the value of that land with regard to its amenities.
The Solicitor-General says, "It is quite true that you are getting no advantage from the other people coming in, but it is also true that your neighbours, in building that sea wall, have prevented the houses from falling into the sea, and this has made the land safe. In that way you have made it more valuable, and the Government are going to tax the land without taking into account the cost of the sea wall." Surely the Solicitor-General ought to meet a case like that. You find many other properties being developed where the landlord has built the wall in order to preserve the land against the encroachment of the sea.
Take a case where the sea wall has been built by a local authority. Can you go to a man who owns land just inside the city limits and say to him, "Your land has become more valuable and you are enjoying an advantage because the site has been saved from the sea," while his next-door neighbour who built the sea wall himself, who possesses exactly a similar site, is not going to be allowed to benefit by his expenditure? I am sure any single-taxer in the House would be willing to say that the principle which the Solicitor-General is trying to maintain is against all the principles of single-taxers. The idea of a single tax is that the one person you must not hit is the person who created his own improvements. The Government ought to have a little more courage on this question.

Colonel LANE FOX: I think a very strong case has been made out for the adoption of this Amendment. We have had a very courteous reply from the Solicitor-General, but when all the arguments are going so strongly against the Government it is very unfortunate for us that there have been so few Members on the Socialist benches to appreciate the case that has been made against them. There is one case which has always been
put forward at election times by hon. Members opposite, and it is that the value which has been created by the community should be taxed, but no one has ever suggested that when a man has developed his own land, placed works upon it and improved the drainage, the tax on that land should be increased.
I could give countless cases in my own neighbourhood and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will come out with me and imagine that we are a pair of valuers we could go along the great main high roads where considerable value has accrued to the land on one side owing to the enterprise of the owner and not on the other. I have a place in mind where a man has bought some 40 acres on one side of the road and he has developed it in a way which has been described in this Debate. By that means the back land has been brought into communication with the main road and building has gone on there, but for the moment development has been stopped though the value of the back land has been enormously increased.
Just imagine the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming with me in a motor-car to this district. You have this position. On the one side of the road a considerable number of houses have been built, and roads, sewers, and so on provided, but on the other side the owner has done nothing, so that in that case the back land will have no real value. If that land is going to be valued, no value can be put on the land at the right-hand side of the road, whereas, owing to the efforts of the owner who has developed the land on the left-hand side, the value of the back land will be very considerable. There are thousands of cases of that sort. It is no use saying, as was said by the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell), that the owner of the land will eventually get it back in the price charged for building plots, because the hardship will fall on the man who buys the land and has to pay more for it, and is to be taxed upon it because work has been done by the original owner, and not by a public authority. A clearer case of injustice has never been brought before this House. I do rot wish to repeat the arguments which have been used over and over again, but I think it is most regrettable that we cannot in these De-
bates have a larger attendance of the Socialist party, so that they might really understand better than I think many of them do the position to which this Bill will lead.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I agree with my right hon. Friend that this afternoon's proceedings provide a very good instance of how the Guillotine operates in this House. I am sorry that more Members have not been present on the opposite benches, but perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom we are always very glad to see here, will allow me to put in the shortest possible words the point that we are now discussing. There are two cases in which an improvement—in this case a road—adds to the value of the land. They are the case in which the improvement has been made by the expenditure of public money—local or State money—and the case in which it has been made by expenditure incurred by the owner or his predecessors in title. We are not concerned at the moment with improvements which have been made by the expenditure of public money, and with regard to them I would only say that we have always contended, so far as the question of principle is concerned, that the proper way to deal with them is as betterment, and not by means of a tax under this Bill. As regards the other case, where the improvement has been made by the expenditure of the owner or his predecessors in title, I should like to ask a question, which has not been answered this afternoon. How is it possible to justify levying from the subject the same amount of money in the case of an improvement made by the expenditure of the owner as is levied in the case where the improvement was made by the expenditure of the community?
It has been admitted by the Solicitor-General, in answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), that under this Bill the amount to be levied in these two cases is the same. How can that be justified? The only way in which the Solicitor-General justifies it is by saying, "We have to do that because otherwise we should break up the way in which our Bill is constructed. Our Bill is so constructed that, where you have a building estate divided into separate plots, each of these units of occupation is treated separately for
valuation purposes, and, therefore, if this Amendment were inserted, it would not benefit the owners as a whole, because each of the separate units would be valued as a separate unit; and, when you value one unit, we provide in our Clause that you have to imagine that everything else is as it is at the present moment." Incidentally, that only goes to show how ridiculous is the proposal that a valuation should be conducted on these lines. As a matter of fact, however, it; would have been perfectly easy for the Solicitor-General to make it possible to fit an Amendment of this character into the framework of his Bill. All that he would have had to do would have been to insert a provision in Clause 4 that in the case of improvements you should take into consideration the fact that they were all under the same ownership.
Let it be noted that, when it suits the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Solicitor-General and the Government, that is precisely what they do. When the boot is on the other foot, when it is a question of exemptions and of whether a man is or is not liable to pay the tax, the Government say that, if the tax payable by the owner is not more than 10s., he will get off, while if it is more than 10s. he will have to pay. How do they propose to arrive at whether it is more than 10s. or not? Do they take each unit separately then? Not a bit of it. As the Solicitor-General said the other day, they are going to search the country from Caithness to Cornwall, from Suffolk to Wales, to discover whether the owner is the owner of more than one unit, and if, over the whole of England, he owns three units which would be taxed at 3s. 6d. each, then he will be liable to the tax. How can you say that when it suits you you will aggregate all the units in one man's possession, and when it does not you will refuse to take into account a plot on the other side of the street, or adjacent?
In these circumstances I suggest to the Government that the answer, such as it has been, which is the only answer we have had in the Debate so far, is wholly inadequate, and that, bad as it was in the case of the first Amendment, it is even worse in the case of the third, because the case of the third—that of the protective wall, such as a sea wall—really leaves the Government without any defence at all. This is not a case of the
value being improved by work executed by the owner, but a case where the unit is actually brought into existence, and maintained in existence, by the work executed by the owner of the unit. In that case it is true that an all-wise Providence created the land, but it was placed at the bottom of the sea, and would be there still but for the work and expenditure of the owner. How can it be just in these circumstances to refuse to take account of such expenditure? I urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer, even at this late hour, to try to do something to meet so obvious and glaring an injustice, and I would beg anyone who replies for the Government not to say that the only reason why they cannot do it is because it is inconsistent with the framework of the Bill, because to that the answer is that, if the framework of the Bill demands that injustice should be done, it is far better that the Bill should not be passed at all.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I should have thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have tried to give at least one reason why this proposal is not unjust, and would have said what steps are to be taken to meet it. The admission that we got from the Solicitor-General, that it was an unjust act and he knew it, really shows up the whole proposal. It is very extraordinary that, in a Debate on the Budget, we have had no facts or figures to show why this Amendment to try to stop this admitted injustice cannot be accepted, and whether it would cost too much. The Government, I suppose, do not know anything about the figures of these proposals, and cannot say how much this Land Tax is going to bring in. I wonder if they have ever looked into the matter?
It is perfectly well known in agricultural circles that the capital value which owners of agricultural land have put into the soil for equipment alone is reckoned, by Lord Ernie and others, at a good deal more than £815,000,000. That includes a great deal for roads, and I should have liked to hear how much of that £815,000,000 is represented by roads, even in agricultural districts, which are only a part of the proposal. I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer that question. I know of an estate within half a mile of Midhurst, where the road is not only kept up by the
owner, but is the only road used by the general public. It runs right through the middle of the park, with deer grazing on either side, and a golf course has been provided by the owner for the people of Midhurst. If anything happens to that estate, and the land has to be sold, what will be the result under this Bill? That road, which has been entirely created by the owner, gives a building value which no other part has. At any moment the owner could close that road and keep it shut up as private property, instead of opening it, but by doing as he is doing, and looking after the interests of those who live around him, of all classes, he is laying up for his heirs an increased Land Value Tax when it is sold.
I know it is no use appealing against the injustice, because it is admitted by the Government, but I would venture to advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though he will take no advice from me, to look into what is already happening as a result of these proposals. This morning I heard of a contract for building cottages being called off on account of the proposals of this Bill. Yesterday I heard of another contract for 110 cottages' being called off; and last week I heard of yet another contract, on which the people concerned had forfeited the deposit which they had paid rather than go on with a scheme of building houses when these proposals were before the country. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do something, even at the last moment, to remedy this injustice.

Mr. BEAUMONT: One thing that has emerged from such part of this Debate as I have been able to listen to—I regret that I have not been able to hear the whole of it—is that this tax has nothing to do with the blasphemous hypocrisy of the doctrine that God gave the land to the people. The fact that certain owners are exempted from the tax shows that it is in no sense an attempt to get for the people of this country anything to which they are entitled, but is simply and solely an attempt to attack a class whom hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite dislike. There can be no justice whatever in taxing a man for the work which he and his predecessors have put in, which has resulted in nothing but benefit to the community as a whole, and which can in
no sense be looked upon as having been provided by expenditure out of public funds. I suggest that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has any idea whatever of justice in his mind, he will find some way of exempting from this taxation those benefits which the country has received as a result of the work of landowners',

and I suggest that, if he must attack public improvements he should at least confine his depredations to them.

Question put, "That the word 'roads' be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 265.

Division No. 365.]
AYES.
[6.31 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lymington, Viscount


Albery, Irving James
Dawson, Sir Philip
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Dixey, A. C.
Macquisten, F. A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Astor, Viscountess
Eden, Captain Anthony
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Atholl, Duchess of
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Marjorlbanks, Edward


Baillie-Hamliton, Hon. Charles W.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
England, Colonel A.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Millar, J. D.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.


Balniel, Lord
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Ferguson, Sir John
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Beaumont, M. W.
Fermoy, Lord
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Fieldon, E. B.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Ford, Sir P. J.
Muirhead, A. J.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Frece, Sir Walter de
Nail-Cain, A. R. N.


Blindell, James
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Nicholson, Cot. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Ganzonl, Sir John
O'Connor, T. J.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Boyce, Leslie
Glyn, Major R. G C.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Bracken, B.
Gower, Sir Robert
O'Neill, Sir H.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Briscoe, Richard George
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Penny, Sir George


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Perkins, W. R. D.


Buchan, John
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Buchan, Hepburn, P. G. T.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pybus, Percy John


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ramsbotham, H


Butler, R. A.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Remer, John R.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Campbell, E. T.
Hartington, Marquess of
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Haslam, Henry C.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ross, Ronald D.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Salmon, Major I.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Christle, J. A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Savery, S. S.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Scott, James


Cockerill, Brig-General Sir George
Iveagh, Countess of
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Colfox, Major William Philip
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Colman, N. C. D.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Skelton, A. N.


Colville, Major D. J.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cooper, A. Duff
Lamb, Sir J. O.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (s. Moiton)
Smithers, Waldron


Cowan, D. M.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Somerset, Thomas


Cranborne, Viscount
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Stanley, Hon. O (Westmorland)


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Turton, Robert Hugh
Withers, Sir John James


Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Thompson, Luke
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Womersley, W. J.


Thomson, Sir F
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wells, Sydney R.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Todd, Capt. A. J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Terquay)



Train, J.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Major Sir George Hennessy and




Sir Victor Warrender.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gillett, George M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Glassey, A. E.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gossling, A. G.
McElwee, A.


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Gould, F.
McEntee, V. L.


Alpass, J. H.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)


Ammon, Charles George
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
McKinlay, A.


Angell, Sir Norman
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
MacLaren, Andrew


Arnott, John
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Aske, Sir Robert
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McShane, John James


Ayles, Walter
Groves, Thomas E.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Manning, E. L.


Barnes, Alfred John
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
March, S.


Barr, James
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Marcus, M.


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Markham, S. F.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Marley, J.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Marshall, Fred


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Mathers, George


Benson, G.
Harris, Percy A.
Matters, L. W.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Maxton, James


Birkett, W. Norman
Haycock, A. W.
Messer, Fred


Bowen, J. W.
Hayday, Arthur
Middleton, G.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hayes, John Henry
Morley, Ralph


Broad, Francis Alfred
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Bromfield, William
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Mort, D. L.


Bromley, J.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Muff, G.


Brooke, W.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Brothers, M.
Herriotts, J.
Murnin, Hugh


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hicks, Ernest George
Naylor, T. E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Buchanan, G.
Hoffman, P. C.
Oldfield, J. R.


Burgess, F. G.
Hollins, A.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Hopkin, Daniel
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Caine, Hall, Derwent
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Palin, John Henry


Cameron, A. G.
Isaacs, George
Paling, Wilfrid


Cape, Thomas
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Palmer, E. T.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Chater, Daniel
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Church, Major A. G.
Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)
Phillips, Dr. Marlon


Clarke, J. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pole, Major D. G.


Cluse, W. S.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Potts, John S.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Quibell, D. F. K.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kelly, W. T.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Compton, Joseph
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Raynes, W. R.


Cove, William G.
Kenworthy Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Richards, R.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kinley, J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, D.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Dallas, George
Knight, Holford
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dalton, Hugh
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Ritson, J.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Romeril, H. G.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lawrence, Susan
Rowson, Guy


Dukes, C.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Duncan, Charles
Lawson, John James
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Ede, James Chuter
Lawther W. (Barnard Castle)
Sanders, W. S.


Edmunds, J. E.
Leach, W.
Sandham, E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Sawyer, G. F.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Scurr, John


Elmley, Viscount
Lees, J.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Foot, Isaac
Leonard, W.
Sherwood, G. H.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shillaker, J. F.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Logan, David Gilbert
Shinwell, E.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Longbottom, A. W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gibbins, Joseph
Longden, F.
Simmons, C. J.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Lunn, William
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Gill, T. H.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sitch, Charles H.




Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Tillett, Ben
West, F. R.


Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Tinker, John Joseph
Westwood, Joseph


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Toole, Joseph
White, H. G.


Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Tout, W. J.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Townend, A. E.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Vaughan, David
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Sorensen, R.
Viant, S. P.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Stamford, Thomas W.
Walkden, A. G.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Stephen, Campbell
Walker, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Strauss, G. R.
Wallace, H. W.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Sullivan, J.
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Sutton, J. E.
Watkins, F. C.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wise, E. F.


Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wellock, Wilfred
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Welsh, James (Paisley)



Thurtie, Ernest
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Charleton

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 6, line 8, to leave out paragraph (d).

This Amendment arises out of a discussion during Committee, when I was asked to reconsider the position with regard to the question of tithe. As a result of that reconsideration, we are now moving to leave out the paragraph which would have included tithe in the land value. It is not a logical thing to do. Probably the right way of dealing with it is as a separate unit, but, as that has not been done in the Bill, we feel that the proper thing to do, in view of the undertaking that I gave, is to move this Amendment.

Sir BASIL PETO: May I ask what is the position with regard to the old Land Tax? Does that enter into the valuation for the duty, either in the case of it having been redeemed or in the ease of it still being payable? There is a good deal of confusion in the public mind. It is not quite clear outside the House, nor indeed to me, although I think I know the answer, what is the relation of this Land Value Duty to the old Land Tax.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Where the old Land Tax is in existence, the valuer, when he is making the valuation, would take that into account.

Sir B. PETO: Does the owner of the land who has redeemed get the benefit of having redeemed?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: No. If there is no Land Tax in existence, it will not be taken into account.

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 6, line 11, to leave out the words "except any of those," and to insert instead thereof the words:
(not including tithe, tithe rent-charge, or other payment in lieu of tithe) except any of the incumbrances,
The reason for putting the words in this form and not in the form suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) is that it is at least very questionable whether tithe would technically be an encumbrance at all. These words are only put in to make quite sure that they are not included under the term encumbrances.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am obliged to the learned Solicitor-General for his explanation, which is entirely satisfactory to me. I observed that there was an alteration in the wording, and knowing that when there is an alteration in wording inquiries are always made as to the reason of the alteration, I wanted to make quite certain what was the reason. There is a reason, and I am quite satisfied.

Mr. TURTON: Can the learned Solicitor-General say whether it includes tithe that have been redeemed, and if it does not include such, whether the words "other payment in lieu of tithe" would include the case where an owner of land has borrowed money with which to redeem tithe by means of a mortgage upon the land? If neither case is included, I fear that the Finance Bill will stop any redemption of tithe in the future.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The answer is that a payment in lieu of tithe may be allowed when it is a payment which has to be made by the assumed purchaser and is not one which was redeemed in the past.

Amendment agreed to.

Major MUIRHEAD: I beg to move, in page 6, line 13, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that where with respect to a land unit the amount which the ice simple thereof at vacant possession might have been expected to realise upon a sale in the open market on the valuation date (hereafter in this Sub-section referred to as the 'expected amount') has been ascertained, and the owner of such unit satisfies the Commissioners that before offering such fee simple for sale with vacant possession he would have been compelled to obtain vacant possession by the payment of any sum to the tenant or lessees of the unit, the land value of the unit shall be deemed to be such expected amount diminished by the sum so payable to the tenant or lessee.
The Amendment contains such a germ of common sense that one would have hoped that the Government would have accepted it, but for the fact that their past record on the Bill causes one to doubt their attitude. I should have no particular objection to "vacant possession" being in the Clause if there was provision for making allowances for the operation and, particularly, the expenses which are very often necessary before vacant possession can be arrived at. To put in "vacant possession" as one of the suppositions, and to make no allowance whatever for the stages by which vacant possession is arrived at, is entirely illogical.
The Bill, both by its substance and by the manner in which it has been introduced and advocated appears to aim at two things. Firstly, that if a landlord takes advantage of a high price he should be penalised; and, secondly, that if he does not take advantage of it he should be incited to do so. Those appear to be distinctly the two objects of the Bill. If a man is not, in the eyes of the Government valuer, getting the best value he can for his land, and is not, in the words of some hon. Members, putting it to the best use in the interests of the community, he is, by the very fact that this tax is to be levied, deliberately incited to try and get a better price for his land and put it to a different use. If a man is incited to do something, he may accept the incitement. If he does not accept the incitement, it may be because of one of two reasons. One is simply that he does not choose to do it, and the second is that there is some definite obstacle in the
way of his doing it. It is exactly the same when you come to the question of vacant possession. A man desirous of accepting the incitement of the valuation the tax puts upon him, who is desirous of putting his land to some other use, making a fresh lease or doing something else with it, is legally restrained from doing so by the fact that he has not got vacant possession, and because there is a definite legal and financial obstacle in the way of his obtaining vacant possession.
There is another question. If an owner achieves vacant possession, the value which that vacant possession is to him in obtaining a better price or better rent is indubitably reduced by the amount of money required to arrive at that stage when vacant possession is achieved. That is a simple sum which really cannot be contradicted. I will take the case of agricultural land—not because it is the land which is going to involve the largest sums—in order to show what I mean. There is farm which the owner lets to a tenant. A portion of that farm is valued at a high rate for agricultural purposes. The inference is that the Government of to-day are inciting the owner to put that particular piece of land on a particular farm to some other use. The owner accepts the incitement and proceeds to do this. But it will be necessary for him to terminate the tenancy, not necessarily of the particular bit of land, but of the whole farm. You cannot go taking bits here and bits there out of a farm and putting them to other purposes. In a great number of cases, from all practicable points of view, it will terminate the whole of the tenancy, and that in turn will, very rightly under the laws which exist, entitle the farmer to obtain a whole year's rent in compensation. To presume vacant possession in that case and entirely wash out the expense to which the owner is put in order obtain vacant possession by compensating his tenant, is most unjust and illogical. In the case of urban tenancies the sums involved will be vastly greater.
On the pure principle, there is no question whatever that if there are two people who own two bits of land which in the eyes of the valuer under this Bill appear to be of equal value, and the valuer puts equal values upon them, and if one owner
has vacant possession and the other owner is restricted by an unexpired portion of a lease, particularly in the case of a rising market, the tax which is going to be put upon the person who is restricted by the unexpired lease is going to be much heavier than that in the case of the man with vacant possession who can take advantage of any rise the market provides. A possible objection, and one which may occur to hon. Members opposite—I do not want to raise an unreasonable objection merely for the purpose of knocking it down—is that it may be argued that it is, perhaps, not quite fair to put down a lump sum payment in order to obtain vacant possession and have it carried on from year to year, and for a man to get annual reduction of tax upon what is really a lump sum payment made at one particular moment. But, after all, this is in connection with a supposed sale of a fee simple. The supposed sale of a fee simple is one individual case; it is only a thing which can take place on an individual occasion. Yet on that particular basis, if once you levy a tax you will continue to levy it in succeeding years.
If it is just to take what, in fact, will be a capital payment, surely it is only fair to take away from the land value the money necessary to obtain vacant possession as an annual rebate or an annual reduction. I think I know what will be the answer of the Solicitor-General, unless my remarks and those of my hon. and right hon. Friends have frightened him away from it. He may say, "Oh, well, you cannot have these things. We must keep this tax simple." Simplicity is going to be his keynote. Simplicity is the last refuge. It reminds me of a line in a song in one of the great musical comedies before the War, "The Arcadians":
Simplicitas, simplicitas, that is what you have christened me.
I think there should be an obvious pause between "simplicit" and "as." It used to be said:
Oh, Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name.
Really, if the Solicitor-General and his friends wish to go on in this way, it is time to give liberty a rest and to call simplicity into play. The injustices which will be committed under the Bill in the name of simplicity are legion. I do not want to be unfair on the Solicitor-General
and to make claims which cannot be substantiated, but I was interested in what he said on 11th June. He said:
I have no hostility to owners at all. My attitude is that this tax should be levied in an efficient and fair way, and that anything that is put into this Bill should help to make it easier to work and fair in its operation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th June, 1931; col. 1266, Vol. 253.]
It is easy to say that you are going to do something which does two things, makes it simple and easy to work, and makes it fair. The whole test in all these dual cases is, what happens when the two things come into conflict, however slight? That is the acid test which has to be applied. I will follow the Solicitor-General's reason. He was relying to a speech to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson), in which he had drawn attention to the enormous number of separate valuations which would have to be made and the time it would take to make them. The Solicitor-General said:
Where you get whole rows of streets, each house on each side being exactly the same, there will be many occasions when valuers can do many more than 26 in a day, and they will not be unfair valuations. They will be perfectly good valuations done by men who understand their business."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th June, 1931; col. 847, Vol. 253.]
That is true. No doubt a valuer walking in a street with the instructions which this Bill will give, will see whole rows of houses apparently built of similar bricks and containing similar roofs, with perhaps identical little gardens in front, with monkey-trees of very similar growth, and to all intents and purposes they will appear to be exactly the same. He will no doubt, value them on a flat rate. But consider the owner. In some cases there may be vacant possession of the house. The owner may be able at once to take a higher rent which a rising market affords him. In other cases there may be considerable terms of leases to run. It all depends upon the subject of vacant possession and how much it will cost the owner to obtain vacant possession.
7.0 p.m.
Simplicity is put down as a canon of taxation, but one can run any canon or any rule of life to an absurdity. I suppose in the far off primitive life of mankind conditions were largely based on simplicity. A man gained possession
of his neighbour's land, his goods, his cattle, or even his neighbour's wife, not for the asking but for the taking. But the primitive man found that that simplicity had certain disadvantages. In the course of civilisation we have evolved a system by which, at the cost of a good deal of complication, we have drifted away from that rigid simplicity, and have come to a mode of life that may be a little more complicated but is a great deal more comfortable. I would ask the Solicitor-General to recede from that rigid attitude of simplicity, and not let us see once again on the altar of simplicity the immolation of fairness.

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think the House will agree that my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment has put the position so clearly that very few additional words are required from me. The Clause to which this is an Amendment has the title "ascertainment of values." That is the purpose for which the whole Clause is designed. The Amendment is an attempt, on the part of those who have formulated it, to increase the fairness of that purpose. A valuer, faced with the task of valuing a house, has, in the first place, to bend his mind to the almost impossible task of trying to say what is the clear site value of the building if you take away from it all the surrounding buildings which give it any value at the present time. He has to take into consideration a mass of factors which may determine its selling power in the open market, and surely the factor to which this Amendment is directed is a perfectly measurable and ascertainable one.
I think the House will agree that the course of legislation which in recent years towards increasing the security of tenure to tenants, has been a helpful and beneficient process. One of the great characteristics of that legislation is to give a tenant the right to some monetary compensation before he is deprived of his tenancy. If you put a penalty on landowners who hold to the firm promise of compensation for disturbance, you will be acting contrary to the whole course of legislation that has tended to increase security of holding. In this case, unless the landlord is to get credit for his
promise to compensate on disturbance, it seems to me that you will be placing a premium on holdings of no security, and you will discourage the beneficient process of legislation which has led to the right to compensation on disturbance. It is all very well to say that the value of a unit of land depends merely on its selling price and suitability for building. It depends on a great deal more. It depends, particularly in ordinary business, on the ease with which vacant possession can be secured, and can be handed over to a would-be purchaser. Surely, if there is any purpose in this Clause for ascertainment of value, it must be necessary for the House to bring into account a factor so important as this.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not think it is necessary to rely on that excellent principle which the hon. and gallant Member who proposed this Amendment thought I might rely on, because the whole Amendment is based on a complete fallacy as regards the incidence of the tax. The incidence of the tax is not an increment tax on the sale of land, it is a flat tax put upon the land value of the unit at the time being, and whether that land is ripe is material from the point of view of the incidence of the tax. If I may take the case which the hon. and gallant Member put as an illustration—a farm in the vicinity of a town or village, some parts of which had an added value over the cultivation value, and would be taxed on the difference of value between the two. He presupposes that a necessary and immediate result would be the sale of the land, and that the tax would be connected with that sale of land. That is not so. The land may wait, ripening, for 5, 10 or 15 years, and during the whole of that time the fax will be paid upon that difference of value, and it is not necessarily any incidence of that tax that there should be a supposed sale.
It is merely that the words appear in Clause 8 as a method of valuing, just as they appear in other Acts of Parliament, such as "selling price," or whatever it may be. It is the criterion a valuer has to adopt. He has not to take, for instance, the value to the owner. He has to take the fair market price, however expressed, and the words used here are the price that would be got on a hypothetical sale. The whole assumption
that you should deal with this question on getting vacant possession is based on the fallacy that you are dealing here with a tax that arises upon sale, which you are not doing. You are not dealing either with any particular interest in the land. You are dealing with the whole interest in the land. If you were to take into account a figure such as is suggested here, you would be, in fact, apportioning the land value between different interests, and that is a thing quite contrary to the whole conception of the Bill. It may be that the hon. Member does not agree with the Bill—I dare say he does not—but with the Bill as it is, based on this system of taxation, to insert such a provision would be running counter to the whole principle of it.

Earl WINTERTON: What the Solicitor-General has said may be true. No doubt it is contrary to the principle of the Bill, but I would like to give an example analogous to that used by the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment. There is a case—I will not mention any names—which has come under my personal notice. A owns a farm which is valuable for farming purposes, and has also some further value for building purposes. The farm is leased by A to B on a long lease. A is willing to sell some of the farm land for building purposes when a prospective purchaser comes along. Meanwhile he is not holding up the land, in the sense that hon. Gentlemen opposite mean it, because it is being put to the best possible use, and even in these bare times is fetching quite a high rent as agricultural land. But before A can sell any land, he has to pay compensation to B for disturbance of his agricultural land, and the amount may be very considerable. Therefore, the value of the land to A for building purposes is the amount of its value for building purposes, less the amount of compensation which he has to pay to B.
My hon. and gallant Friend who moved his Amendment did so in the fairest possible way. He gave an example of what you can find in very many cases up and down the country. That method of letting land has increased in recent years, and I say that in such a case this Clause, as it stands, does not arrive at the true ascertainment value of the
land. It does not arrive at the amount which has to be paid for compensation. That is not dealt with in the Clause. It is all very well for the Solicitor-General to say that this Amendment would go outside the intention of the Clause. I do not dispute that. But this Amendment deals with what would be a concrete grievance, when the tax is in operation, if it is not dealt with. It is only one other of so many examples that could be given of how inequitable this tax would be, because cases like that will arise, and the most careful intention on the part of the Government will be unable to avoid them unless words are there in black and white. I regret very much that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not accepted the Amendment.

Major LLEWELLIN: I aceept the Solicitor-General's remark that this Amendment goes contrary to the Clause. It only shows one more unfairness in the Bill. A valuer has to assume that the landlord has vacant possession. That is the first point. The second point is that the landlord cannot get vacant possession without the payment of a sum of money, but still it is assumed that the land is vacant, and that he has vacant possession, and that there is no house upon it. That is obviously penalising—as my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman have said—the landlord who has given a long security of tenure. It is obvious that in future a landlord, with the possibility of this tax rising after the first imposition to goodness knows what heights, will be careful not to tie up his land in any long tenure which will land him in the position of having a tenant at such a rent perhaps that he finds he has to pay on land of not very great agricultural value a tax which far exceeds the rent he gets from his tenant; yet he cannot get rid of that tenant without paying a sum of compensation to him to get out. The more one considers this Bill the more unfair one sees it is to the man who is at present the owner of a piece of land.
The Solicitor-General and the Government have to-day refused to allow a landlord for any improvements. The other day the case of betterment was before us, where, as the Solicitor-General says, the landlord has paid actually a sum as betterment, and has therefore paid something which the local authorities said
was good for the community. He has put his money into something which benefits the country, and you are penalising him for developing his land. It is not really surprising to me that the Government reject this proposal, which is obviously fair. People who will be unable to get vacant possession, unless they pay something for it, are to be called upon to pay a tax on the value of a site as though they were in vacant possession. In some ways one regrets that the Government have not accepted the Amendment, but from the point of view of discussing this Bill in the country we shall be able to point to a large number of injustices which this Bill imposes on various people.

Mr. E. BROWN: I think the Amendment is based on a misconception. It is quite irrelevant in valuing land under the Clause to take into consideration how it is let or how the land value tax is to be distributed after it has been claimed. There is to be a distribution as to one-twelfth. In taking the value of land under paragraph (e) it must be taken into account that the unit is free from any incumbrance except any of those mentioned in the First Schedule; and in the First Schedule hon. Members will see paragraph (g) which says:
restrictions on user which have become operative imposed by or in pursuance of any Act or by any agreement (not being a lease to which the unit is subject):
The unit as a whole is valued, and at is quite irrelevant as to the distribution of the tax, on the one hand, and how the land is let, on the other. I think the Amendment is based on a fallacy.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: If hon. Members will refer to the first part of this Clause they will get a better idea of what the valuer has to do in order to decide the value of the unit. It says that he shall
cause to be ascertained, as at that date, the land value of every land unit, that is to say, the amount which the fee simple thereof with vacant possession might have been expected to realise upon a sale in the open market on the valuation date.
How are you going to get the value of a unit with vacant possession unless the unit is sold? That shows the difficulty of trying to impose a tax on land and to
assume the value of the land for building purposes as a free site when the land is sold with the buildings upon it. That is our difficulty. It shows that these valuations which are to be made are purely hypothetical. I want to ask the Solicitor-General a question. How would he value the site upon which the Bank of England stands 2 I can understand how it is possible to value the land of various concerns around the Bank of England, because that value is dependent on the fact that the Bank of England is there, but if you take away the Bank of England from the site how are you going to value the site upon which the Bank stands? It is practically impossible. The Stock Exchange is another example. It is almost impossible to value the land of the Stock Exchange itself, because its value does not depend on the buildings that are around it. The value of the buildings around it depends on the fact that the Stock Exchange is there, just as the value of the property around the Bank of England exists because the Bank of England is there. It is impossible to value a sate unless it is sold.
Assume that you have a site in the City of London, or anywhere else, and on that site there is a building and on that building a lease, not a long lease, a lease of 10 or 11 years. The valuer wants to value the site without the building upon it, but the owner says that he cannot get possession. It is impossible for the owner to do what is laid down in this Clause, that is to get vacant possession, because if he wants to get vacant possession he will have to pay a big premium to the person who has a lease on the building. He cannot get a free site and sell it. Assume that there is a building on a site—I know a few in Lancashire—and that the building is an old unoccupied mill. How are you going to value that site? Are you going to assume that that site is free and open, ready for another building to be erected upon it; and are you going to value it as a free and open site? It is not a free and open site, because on that site is a building, and at would probably cost more to demolish the building than the site itself is worth. In taking the value of that land you have to take into consideration the cost of demolishing the building on the site, otherwise you cannot get at the real site value of the land, with vacant possession.

Viscount CRANBORNE: I respectfully differ from the Solicitor-General who says that there is a fallacy in this Amendment. Only the other day he made a statement which supported the principle underlying this proposal. I remember his saying that in a case where an owner was able to make some arrangement with a local authority under a town planning scheme not to build on his land for a certain number of years, the tax would be proportionately reduced. In the case of a land owner who has scheduled his property as an open space he is to pay no tax because the land cannot be taken for development. By these two admissions the Solicitor-General has completely given away his case, and it ill befits him to go back upon it now.

Major HILLS: We have been told by the Solicitor-General that this Amendment is inconsistent with the main principle of the Bill and that the valuer is not concerned with the distribution of ownership, but only with the value of the land. May I point out that the incidence of the tax will be different? You are careful under Clause 16 to give the leaseholder the right to recoup himself out of the rent he pays, but you give no corresponding right to the owner to recoup himself. Although my hon. and gallant Friend may not have succeeded in convincing the Solicitor-General he has at any rate pointed out a flaw in the Bill. Take a common case where land is let for a fairly long period, not for 50 years, at a very low rent, a rent a good deal less than the rack rent. The owner cannot deal with that land; he cannot make betterment. He cannot sell, because the land is subject to a lease, but a man who has an identical plot may be able to sell. Surely the tax will fall upon him much more lightly; and it falls much more heavily on the first man. Assuming that the land tax is to be imposed the Solicitor-General I believe wants to be fair between one landowner and another, but in this case he is being extremely unfair. From what I know of him I hope he will endeavour to rectify it. It is not rectified by Clause 16 or

by Clause 27, and it is a real evil. There may be some objection to accepting the Amendment, but there is a real practical injustice here which should be remedied.

Mr. BEAUMONT: I suggest that the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) and the Solicitor-General have not entirely met the Amendment. The Solicitor-General says that this is not a tax upon sales but upon the actual value of the land, and he used the term "market value." There is an old saying that things are worth what they will fetch, and if any land is saddled with a lease or anything which entails the payment of compensation for disturbance, it will fetch a great deal less than land which is not so saddled. I have tried to sell land and I know.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It will fetch the same, but the money will be distributed differently. The leaseholder will get something.

Mr. BEAUMONT: I appreciate the point if the land is sold with vacant possession, but I was assuming that the purchaser would have to get rid of the tenant. It may be a different distribution, but under this Bill the tenant who will get a proportion does not pay any of the tax. The only person who pays it is the landlord, who will, in fact, get lese money for his land because it is saddled with a lease. It may be argued that this can be remedied by the leases which are made after the tax is imposed. That is so, something can be put into every lease to provide that some proportion of the tax is to be paid by the tenant.

It being half-past Seven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders of the House of 4th and 29th June, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 288.

Division No. 366.]
AYES.
[7.31 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Balniel, Lord


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Atholl, Duchess of
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.


Albery, Irving James
Baillie-Hamliton, Hon. Charles W.
Beaumont, M. W.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Betterton, Sir Henry B.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Galbraith, J. F. W.
O'Connor, T. J.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
O'Neill, Sir H.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Boyce, Leslie
Gower, Sir Robert
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bracken, B.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Greene, W P. Crawford
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Briscoe, Richard George
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Ramsbotham, H.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Buchan, John
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Remer, John R.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Butler, R. A.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hammersley, S. S.
Ross, Ronald D.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Campbell, E. T.
Hartington, Marquess of
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Salmon, Major I.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Haslam, Henry C.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Sandsman, Sir N. Stewart


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Savery, S. S.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Skelton, A. N.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Chapman, Sir S.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Christle, J. A.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Smithers, Waldron


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Somerset, Thomas


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hurd, Percy A.
Somerville, A. A (Windsor)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Iveagh, Countess of
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Colman, N. C. D.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Colville, Major D. J.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cooper, A. Duff
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Moiton)
Thompson, Luke


Cranborne, Viscount
Lane Fox, Cot. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thomson, Sir F.


Croft, Brigadier General Sir H.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby. High Peak)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Train, J.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Davies, Maj. Geo. F, (Somerset, Yeovil)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dixey, A. C.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lymington, Viscount
Wayland, Sir William A.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Wells, Sydney R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macquisten, F. A.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


England, Colonel A.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Everard, W. Lindsay
Marjorlbanks, Edward
Withers, Sir John James


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Womersley, W. J.


Ferguson, Sir John
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Fermoy, Lord
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Fielden, E. B.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)



Ford, Sir P. J.
Muirhead, A. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Nail-Cain A. R. N.
Sir George Penny and Major the


Frece, Sir Walter de
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Marquess of Titchfield.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Barnes, Alfred John
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Barr, James
Broad, Francis Alfred


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Batey, Joseph
Brockway, A. Fenner


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Bromfield, William


Alpass, J. H.
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Bromley, J.


Ammon, Charles George
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Brooke, W.


Angell, Sir Norman
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Brothers, M.


Arnott, John
Benson, G.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)


Aske, Sir Robert
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Birkett, W. Norman
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)


Ayles, Walter
Blinded, James
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Buchanan, G.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Bowen, J. W.
Burgess, F. G.




Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Calne, Hall-, Derwent
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Cameron, A. G.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Raynes, W. R.


Cape, Thomas
Kelly, W. T.
Richards, R.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Chater, Daniel
Kenworthy Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Church, Major A. G.
Kinley, J.
Ritson, J.


Clarke, J. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Cluse, W. S.
Knight, Holford
Romeril, H. G.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lathan, G, (Sheffield, Park)
Rowson, Guy


Compton, Joseph
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Cove, William G.
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cowan, D. M.
Lawrence, Susan
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Sanders, W. S.


Dallas, George
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Sandham, E.


Dalton, Hugh
Leach, W.
Sawyer, G. F.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Scott James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Scurr, John


Day, Harry
Less, J.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leonard, W.
Sherwood, G. H.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shield, George William


Dukes, C.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Duncan, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Shillaker, J. F.


Ede, James Chuter
Longbottom, A. W.
Shinwell, E.


Edmunds, J. E.
Longden, F.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lunn, William
Simmons, C. J.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Elmley, Viscount
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. B. (Seaham)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Foot, Isaac
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Sinkinson, George


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
McElwee, A.
Sitch, Charles H.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Smith Frank (Nuneaton)


Gibbins, Joseph
McKinlay, A.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Mac Laren, Andrew
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Gill, T. H.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gillett, George M.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Glassey, A. E.
Mac Neill-Weir, L.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gossling, A. G.
McShane, John James
Sorensen, R.


Gould, F.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Stephen, Campbell


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Manning, E. L.
Strauss, G. R.


Gray, Milner
Mansfield, W.
Sullivan, J.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
March, S.
Sutton, J. E.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Marcus, M.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Markham, S. F.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Marley, J.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Groves, Thomas E.
Marshall, Fred
Tillett, Ben


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mathers, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Matters, L. W.
Toole, Joseph


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Maxton, James
Tout, W. J.


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Messer, Fred
Townend, A. E.


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Middleton, G.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Millar, J. D.
Vaughan, David


Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Viant, S. P.


Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Morley, Ralph
Walkden, A. G.


Harris, Percy A.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Walker, J.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Wallace, H. W.


Haycock, A. W.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watkins, F. C.


Hayday, Arthur
Mort, D. L.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hayes, John Henry
Muff, G.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Wellock, Wilfred


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Murnin, Hugh
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Naylor, T. E.
West, F. R.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Westwood, Joseph


Herriotts, J.
Noel Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Hicks, Ernest George
Oldfield, J. R.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hoffman, P. C.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hollins, A.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hopkin, Daniel
Paling, Wilfrid
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Palmer, E. T.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Isaacs, George
Perry, S. F.
Winterton, G. E. (Lelcester, Loughb'gh)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wise, E. F.


Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Pole, Major D. G.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Potts, John S.



Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Price, M. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pybus, Percy John
Mr. Thurtle and Mr. Charleton.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given to that part of the Bill to be concluded at half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's Sitting.

Amendment made, in page 6, line 29, after the word "any," insert the words
agricultural cottages or."—[The Solicitor-General.]

CLAUSE 9.—(Recording and Registration of Values.)

Amendments made: In page 8, line 40, leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 41, and insert instead thereof the words:
(a) except where the entries in respect of a land unit are the same as those inserted in the register relating to the last preceding valuation.

In page 9, line 1, leave out the words "subsequent valuation," and insert instead thereof the words:
valuation after the first valuation made under this Part of this Act."—[The Solicitor-General.]

CLAUSE 10.—(Division of units and apportionment of values.)

Amendment made: In page 9, line 20, after the word "shall," insert the words "as soon as practicable."—[The Solicitor-General.]

CLAUSE 11.—(Objections to and appeals from valuations.)

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 9, line 39, to leave out from the beginning to the word "he," in page 10, line 1, and to insert instead thereof the words "the period hereafter in this section limited."

This Amendment really goes with two further Amendments which appear later on the Paper, one of which is a large insertion of two new sub-paragraphs, the design of which is to provide machinery for objections and appeals. As originally drafted, the Bill provided only for objection against valuation. In the course of the Committee stage, an Amendment was moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) to give a right of objection to any action of the Commissioners under Clause 8, Sub-section 3 (c), in valuing two or more pieces of land with separate occupations but in the same ownership,
as a single lot. I promised to bring in an Amendment which would carry out the proposal which he made. The present Amendment is in order to introduce the two Amendments to which I have referred, and which carry out that promise. In paragraph (3) in that Amendment, the opportunity has been taken of extending the time limit for objections to notice of valuation. I shall have to insert two further Amendments in order to carry out the promise which I gave to inquire into that matter.

Captain BOURNE: I should like to express my gratitude to the hon. and learned Gentleman for this concession which he has given, and also for one which he gave earlier, and for which I have not yet had the opportunity of thanking him.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 10, line 5, leave out from "therein," to the end of line 9:

In line 18, leave out the word "and," and insert instead thereof the words:
(2) If the owner of two or more pieces of land in different separate occupations objects to their having been treated by the Commissioners as one land unit in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to the ascertainment of values, then, within the period hereafter in this Section limited, he may give to the Commissioners notice in writing of his objection, stating the grounds thereof.
(3) No such notice of objection as aforesaid shall be of any effect unless given by the owner within forty-two days after service upon him of a copy of the entries in respect of the unit, or, where no such service is required by this Part of this Act, within sixty days after the first day of August on or before which the register is so required to be deposited, or, in either case, within such further time as the Commissioners may, on application made within the period aforesaid, allow, but upon any such objection being made to them within the period limited by this Sub-section, the Commissioners shall either cause the entries objected to to be amended in agreement with the objector or give notice to him of their refusal to do so:

Provided that:"

In line 20, to leave out the word "forty-two," and insert instead thereof the word "sixty."

In line 37, leave out the word "forty-two," and insert instead thereof the word "sixty."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Sir THOMAS INSKIP: I beg to move, in page 10, line 35, to leave out from "1910" to the end of line 36.
When this Bill was in Committee Clause 11 as then drafted provided for an appeal on what were called questions of law, from the referee to the High Court and, in Scotland, by virtue of the application Clause, to the Court of Session and the question which arises in this connection is of great importance. It applies not only to England but to Scotland, and, for that reason, we are gratified to have the genial presence of the Lord Advocate to-night. He has not been able to afford much time to the consideration in Committee of this Measure, but we are glad to have him with us this evening. There is no doubt that the Bill as drafted gives only an appeal on questions of law, and, as any hon. Member who has even a nodding acquaintance with the law knows, there are some questions of law which necessitate the consideration of matters of fact. To use a lawyer's expression, there are mixed questions of law and fact in some cases, and when an appeal is given on questions of law, that of course covers mixed questions of law and fact.
Hon. Members will forgive me for giving an illustration which may help the layman to follow this discussion as far as it is necessary for legal questions to intrude in it. The Derating Act only gives an appeal on questions of law, and the question arose under that Act as to whether or not a beer-bottling store was an industrial hereditament. At first sight, that would seem to be a question not of law but of fact. It is what lawyers call a mixed question of law and fact, calling for the interpretation of a legal phrase with reference to a particular set of facts. That is an illustration of the kind of question which would have been appealable under the Bill as originally drafted. The Bill was regarded as unsatisfactory in that respect, and I, on behalf of the taxpayers in England, and the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) on behalf of the taxpayers in Scotland——[HON. MEMBERS: "Some of them!"]—made proposals to enable the taxpayer to have an appeal not only on mixed questions of law and fact, but on questions of fact also. Everybody
understood that that was the purpose of our respective proposals. When I moved an Amendment providing for an appeal on questions of fact with regard to the English taxpayers the Solicitor-General said that I had made it quite clear
that there should be a perfectly open appeal on all questions of fact as well as of law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th June, 1931: col. 1314, Vol. 253.]
The Solicitor-General resisted the Amendment, quite clearly understanding that what we wanted was to extend the provisions of the Bill to appeals on pure questions of fact. When we reached Clause 31 which applies the Bill to Scotland the hon. Member for Leith moved an equally explicit Amendment and made it plain that he intended that there should be an appeal, as he said, not merely on points of law but on points of fact. As will be seen from the OFFICIAL REPORT of 18th June he suggested, as a convenient tribunal the judges of the Lauds Valuation Court in Scotland—one being the Senior Lord Ordinary and the other the Lord Ordinary who takes Exchequer cases or what we now call revenue cases—and it was quite plain to the Lord Advocate and to everybody that the intention was to give an appeal on questions of fact in Scotland. The Lord Advocate made it plain that he understood the matter in that sense because he said that the first objection to the Amendment was that by it:
you would be allowing appeals on questions of fact in Scotland, whereas in England yon are only going to allow appeals on questions of law.
There was no mistake in the Lord Advocate's mind as to what we desired, any more than there had been in the mind of the Solicitor-General. The Lord Advocate had another objection to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leith and it was that, in any system which applied equally to Scotland and England, it was necessary to have same central final court of appeal, where all questions could be knit up, as it were; not as, in questions of rating, where two different systems obtain, one in Scotland and one in England, and you have a final court of appeal in Scotland, namely, the Lands Valuation Court and a final court of appeal in England, namely the House of Lords. The Lord Advocate clearly and cogently
pointed out that under an Act of Parliament which applied the same law to both countries, yon could not have two courts acting side by side and giving possibly inconsistent decisions. Therefore, he said, that if we were to have an appeal on questions of fact we must at any rate have some arrangement by which the two countries could have the questions which arose decided in the same court, so as to prevent trouble arising from inconsistent decisions. He then said:
This is pre-eminently a matter on which the Government are prepared to take the sense of the Committee. If it is the will of the Committee that this should be considered, we are prepared to give an undertaking to consider the matter and to embody the collected views in a Clause which would deal with the whole situation.
Then he proceeded to make the offer which would clinch the bargain and make plain the understanding:
If that would meet the wish of the Committee then I suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn.
There was a clear offer to the hon. Member for Leith to withdraw his Amendment, if the general sense of the Committee appeared to be in favour of the proposal to give an appeal on questions of fact. The Lord Advocate went on to say:
We are willing to take the substance of this Amendment but it is undesirable to take it in the form in which it now stands because we are anxious to correlate the position in the two countries.
In other words, "We accept the principle of the appeal on questions of fact, but we cannot take it in the form proposed by the hon. Member for Leith. We must have a final court which will knit up the law of both countries in the same place." I ventured then to intervene——

Mr. E. BROWN: May I point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that before he intervened I put this point to the Lord Advocate:
I am much obliged to the Lord Advocate. He may find it undesirable to have these amateur words in the Bill but on the understanding that he will meet the point of substance, both with regard to England and Scotland, I beg leave to withdraw.

Sir T. INSKIP: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. That made plainer, if possible, what was already plain, but
as the Lord Advocate did not respond immediately, I ventured to ask whether it was to be made plain as the hon. Member had anticipated, that the same position was to apply to Scotland and to England and the Lord Advocate, beside whom was seated the President of the Board of Trade, replied that he must not be tied down to details. The word "details" does not appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT but I have a clear recollection of its use. However it is not vital to my argument and I take the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Lord Advocate said:
The hon. and learned Member must not tie me down in a matter of this Kind because there are important differences as between the procedure in England and the procedure in Scotland. In England there is an appeal to a single judge but in Scotland an appeal of this kind is an appeal to three judges. I cannot give any undertaking in matters of this kind "—
meaning procedure—
but I am prepared to give the undertaking that we appreciate the importance of securing uniformity in matters of this kind. I hope the hon. and learned Member will not press me further."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th June, 1931; cols. 2022 to 2025, Vol. 253.]
I immediately accepted what I feel sure the whole Committee understood to be intended, and I said that what the Lord Advocate had stated was quite suffcient for me. It is not necessary to argue the question afresh, I advanced some arguments in Committee which did not appeal to or convince the Solicitor-General, but the hon. Member for Leith was more fortunate, more happy, more successful, as one would expect from his greater powers of penetration. He secured from the Lord Advocate the assent which I had not been able to obtain from the Solicitor-General. The Lord Advocate was on the bridge that night. The Solicitor-General had well earned his relief and the Lord Advocate was in charge.
If it were necessary to argue the question, one might point with assurance to the experience under the 1909–10 Finance Act. That Act provided that any party aggrieved in relation to the taxation of land under that Act, might appeal both on questions of fact and of law. I well remember the Solicitor-General replying, as the OFFICIAL REPORT will show, that that was one of the chief causes of the breakdown of the 1009–10 legislation—
that the taxpayer availed himself so readily of the rights which Parliament had given him, that, in practice, it was found to amount, as the Solicitor-General said, to obstruction. That is the complaint which bureaucrats have always made against people who defend liberty. I mention the 1909–10 Act to show that there is ample precedent on this point. The Solicitor-General, it is true, described it as an unhappy precedent but unhappy for whom? Not for the taxpayer. Unhappy for the Solicitor-General and his friends undoubtedly, but there it is. It is a precedent and any hon. Member who considers the Bill in its present form will realise how valuable it may be for the taxpayer, who does not want to obstruct but who wants to have his rights established, to have an appeal on questions of fact.
8.0 p.m.
I remember a very important piece of litigation which arose under the Income Tax Acts with reference to the meaning of the word "residence." It was the ease of a gentleman who was really resident in the Irish Free State, but who came to this country once a month to attend meetings of a hoard of directors and 011 each visit slept for two nights at, I think, the Spa Hotel, Bath. The Commissioners found that he was resident in this country for the purposes of taxation in England. The case went to the House of Lords and the final tribunal held, I think perhaps a little unwillingly, that they were precluded by the finding of the Commissioners and that there was no appeal on the question of fact but only on the question of law, and that this unfortunate gentleman, who came to this country nine or ten times a year for a couple of days on each occasion, was resident in this country, although his home, his establishment, his property, and everything else were in the Irish Free State. Any hon. Member will agree that it would have been a very valuable right for that gentleman to have had an appeal on the question of fact beyond the Commissioners, who are in the same position as the Referees in relation to the Income Tax Acts. Let me take an illustration from this Bill. There was a notorious definition, which we had not an opportunity of discussing with regard to excavations. Imagine a referee deciding that a particular excavation is not a work executed for the purpose of bring-
ing the configuration of the soil to its actual formation. The unfortunate litigant will be precluded from appealing against the decision of the referee, who may have his own peculiar views about a very peculiar definition. There will be no appeal to any superior court.
I do not seek to argue this question afresh. The Lord Advocate has concluded the question. The Lord Advocate—I say it in complete sincerity and with sincere admiration for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's qualities—is well known as an honoured Member attending in the Parliament House in Edinburgh. I am not fortunate enough ever to have been opposed to him, but I well know his reputation for honour and candour. The Solicitor-General shares the same qualities. I would take the word of those two learned gentlemen rather than their bond. Their word is not only as good as their bond but it is better than their bond. When you take the word of those two hon and learned Gentlemen you may be quite sure that you will not have the spirit of the transaction bettered by any legal phrase which a lawyer may invent. The undertaking will be carried out in the spirit as well as in the letter. It is for that reason that we are so delighted to see the Lord Advocate as well as the Solicitor-General here prepared to implement their promise and to carry out as clear a Parliamentary bargain as was ever made.
Unfortunately, we are dealing with this Bill under circumstances in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not had the opportunity or time to give the necessary thought to the devising of an Amendment to carry out the intention which the two hon. and learned Members are here to implement. The Bill having been only printed on Friday, the Government being much occupied with the Amendments about double taxation and playing fields, have not yet had time to draw up an Amendment to give the appeal on fact which the Lord Advocate promised in the name of the Government. With great respect, we have come to their assistance. We have ventured to put down words, my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) for Scotland and myself for England, which will save the Government any further trouble, except in so far as they may think it necessary to add words or to
alter some of the words to meet the true situation. I claim no peculiar sanctity for my Amendment, and I do not imagine that my hon. Friend the Member for Leith will claim sanctity for his particular form of words, but there is one thing that they do achieve, and that is that both Amendments carry out the intention which was held out to the Committee as the promise of the Lord Advocate.
Without labouring the matter further, I say that the two hon. and learned Members are here this evening, and I want them, if they will, to consider what I am about to say as a very serious statement. The Lord Advocate promised, in the most explicit fashion ever known, ever possible in this Chamber, to give an appeal on questions of fact both in Scotland and in England. It is quite true that he reserved the right to consider how it should be done, or whether it would be necessary to provide for an appeal, which at present does not exist, from the Lands Valuation judges in Scotland to the House of Lords. We are not here to reargue the question. We have little doubt that the two hon. and learned Gentlemen will implement the promise that was given. It was a promise made for good consideration. My hon. Friend the Member for Leith had moved his Amendment in a Committee which was obviously prepared to support him. It was the expression of the opinion of the Committee which, I think, compelled the Lord Advocate, in spite of what had happened on Clause 11, to yield the point. In a word, it was a bargain. I do not choose to use that word when I come to an understanding with a right hon. and learned Gentleman who, I know, intends to carry out what is understood as well as expressed. We did not draw up a memorandum of agreement between the parties, with signatures at the end and a seal to make it seem more formal; but for good consideration the right hon. Gentleman gave the promise and we are here to see how good temperedly and how honestly English gentlemen carry out a promise which they have given.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. and learned Member's fulmination may have surprised some hon. Members in regard to matters of which they had,
perhaps, little knowledge. I understand that when I was not here on a day when a Scottish Member was occupying the Floor of the House, the Corporation of Edinburgh, feeling themselves desirous of having some particular form of procedure in Scotland, as in other matters, thought that they might as well impress their opinion upon the country in the southern part of the Kingdom.

Mr. E. BROWN: That is not so. I moved my Amendment, it is true, after consultation with the Corporation of Edinburgh, but it had no relation to England. May I call the Solicitor-General's attention to certain paragraphs in the Debate? England was not raised by me but by the Lord Advocate. He said that he wanted to allow appeals on questions of fact in Scotland whereas in England we were only allowing appeals on questions of law. I replied that it ought to be done there, too.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I have read the Debate and I have noted the words to which the hon. Member has now referred. He said, "Why not do it for England as well"?

Mr. BROWN: I said that it ought to be done there.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: It ought to be done for England as well. I need not go into the history of the matter, but may I sketch it in a little more fully than has been done by the hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip)? A little fuller sketch will perhaps be better appreciated. The first thing that one has to bear in mind is that this matter was fully discussed in the Committee on the English side, if I may put it in that way, and the Committee, on the 11th June, by a large majority, turned down this precise suggestion. Of course, it would be wholly impossible after that vote of the Committee to replace that which they had definitely negatived.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: On Report? After a promise?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Certainly. If the hon. Member will allow me to proceed I will explain. Hon. Members will remember that the discussion at that time in regard to the English procedure turned a great deal on the
form of the case. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) said:
…. it does not follow that what we are pressing for is a complete appeal upon every conceivable little point of fact that will arise under these valuations. I can quite see that that would give rise to all sorts of difficulties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th June, 1931; cols. 1313–1314, Vol. 253.]
That is what the hon. and learned Member for Fareham is now suggesting that we should do. On 18th June the matter came up when the Committee was dealing with the Scottish adaptation of the Clause, and an Amendment was put down by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown). I am not certain that it is not on the Order Paper for the Report stage.

Mr. BROWN: Yes. I put it down, not seeing any words on the Order Paper to deal with the point.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is important to see what was proposed in the hon. Member's Amendment, The Amendment was as follows:
(2) Within such time as may be proscribed by rules made under this Section, after a notice of refusal has been served upon any person under the last foregoing Sub-section, that person may appeal from the refusal to one of the panel of referees appointed under Part I of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910 "—
No question arises on that—
and any party to such appeal, if aggrieved by the decision of the referee, may appeal therefrom to the lands valuation judges appointed under the provisions of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Acts, whoso decision shall be final "—
The important sentence for the House to notice follows:
and the provisions of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Acts in regard to stating and signing a case on appeal shall apply to the referee in the same way and to the same effect as they apply to a land valuation appeal court under the provisions of the said Acts.
Those provisions enable a case to be stated on questions of law and to be decided by the Lands Valuation judges on questions of law. I note that the hon. and learned Member for Rusholme (Sir Boyd Merriman) does not entirely agree with me there, but if he will consult the Statutes and the well-known text-books on Scottish law, as I have done, he will see what matters can be raised in the Lands Valuation Appeal Court. He will find that it has been said again and again
by that Court that it cannot go into questions of fact; that it is there solely to determine questions of law.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: In support of that view I think it will be necessary for someone to give us the references.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not take my word.

Sir R. HORNE: As the hon. and learned Member knows, questions of procedure in the Courts are always subject to much interpretation and debate, and in the broad way in which the hon. and learned Member stated it, I entirely dispute the statement that he has made.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If the right hon. Gentleman had waited until I had finished my statement it would have been well. Perhaps the qualification I am going to make is the one which he has in mind. The Lands Valuation Court in Scotland is a court from which there is no appeal. Therefore it is impossible for anyone to appeal from that Court on the ground that the Court have wrongly considered a question of fact when they ought only to have considered a question of law. It may be that in some cases there has been an appeal on matters which the Lands Valuation Court judges have taken into account which covered mixed questions of law and fact, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take it from me—if he will look up the authority; I have forgotten the name of the author, but it is a standard work on the Lands Valuation Court of Scotland—that he will find that it is expressly and clearly stated, and there are extracts from most eminent judges, that they are not to go into questions of fact in the Lands Valuation Court.

Sir R. HORNE: These judgments are very considerably qualified, and the hon. and learned Member will keep in mind that one of the processes connected with the Lands Valuation Court procedure is that the evidence taken before the Commissioners has to be transmitted along with the Commissioners' case, and that is not done simply for purposes of philanthropy, but with a very definite idea.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That is true. The evidence is transmitted.

Sir R. HORNE: And it is not done for nothing.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: What I was dealing with was the principle which has been laid down by the Lands Valuation Court Judges, that they are not there to decide matters of fact, and I think I can fairly challenge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to show any judgments of Judges of the Lands Valuation Court in which they say that they are there to judge matters of fact.

Sir R. HORNE: I quite agree.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: The right hon. and learned Gentleman quite agrees. Having got to that point then, it is now clear what it was that was being discussed.

Mr. E. BROWN: indicated dissent.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. Member for Leith shakes his head, but——

Mr. E. BROWN: May I put this to the hon. and learned Gentleman? Surely the last thing that a Committee of this House pays attention to merely is the technical terms of an Amendment. Quite often an Amendment is merely used as a peg in order to put an argument in order, and surely the Solicitor-General is not, in face of my own speech and my reference to the amateurish way in which the thing was drafted, going to ride off on a technical definition of that kind.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Will the hon. Member be a little more patient? I had got as far as saying that that was the Amendment which was being discussed, and I do not think he is prepared to deny the accuracy of that statement.

Sir T. INSKIP: Come to the point.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. and learned Member says, "Come to the point," but one must start in these things at a starting point, and I cannot be blamed if I go back to deal with the Amendment that was before the Committee; and I dare say there were a few hon. Members who went into the Lobby, or would have gone into the Lobby, having only read the Amendment and not having heard the whole of the discussion.
That may even be so this evening—I do not know. The discussion proceeded on the basis that there was, in the appeal to the Lands Valuation Court of Scotland, some evidence certainly of appeal on facts. That is clear from the discussion, and the passage which the hon. and learned Gentleman read from the Lord Advocate's speech said this:
This is pre-eminently a matter on which the Government are prepared to take the sense of the Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPOET, 18th June, 1931; col. 2023, Vol. 253.]
The sense of the Committee had already been taken on the English side. [HON. MEMBRES: "No!"] Hon. Members say "No," but when a specific point has been put and argued before the Committee and it has been decided upon, hon. Members cannot say that the sense of the Committee has not been taken. The Lord Advocate then proceeded to say:
We are willing to take the substance of this Amendment, but it is undesirable to take it in the form in which it now stands, because we are anxious to correlate the position in the two countries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th June, 1931; col. 2024, Vol. 253.]
That is the position from which we have started to consider this matter, and, in considering it, we have attempted to get a procedure—and there are Amendments on the Paper which carry this out—in Scotland which employs the Lands Valuation——

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: On a point of Order. When a Minister says he is prepared to take the sense of the Committee, does it mean the Commit tee which he is addressing, or——[Interruption].

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: What I was suggesting was that the sentence there means, of course, that the speaker was willing to take the sense of the Committee on the matter then before the Committee, and that was the Scottish procedure. What I said was that, as regards the English procedure, that had been dealt with at an earlier stage. Proceeding upon the basis of seeing whether, first of all, one could correlate the two procedures in Scotland and England and, secondly, whether one could give an extended power as regards matters upon which an appeal could be
given, the first matter was to consider the Lands Valuation Court of Scotland as being the appellate tribunal which apparently the hon. Member desired. That had been made an appellate tribunal under an Amendment to Clause 31, and an appeal had been given from that court to the House of Lords in order to get over the difficulty which was experienced under the De-rating Act that you had two different tribunals—the Lands Valuation Court in Scotland and the House of Lords in this country—of appeal from the Court of Appeal.
The right hon. Gentleman did mention the question of the de-rating appeals, and those, of course, have all been decided upon cases stated, and on cases stated, in a great number of cases, from quarter sessions in this country, going to the Divisional Court, then to the Appeal Court, and then to the House of Lords; and, as far as I know, there has never been any difficulty in those eases in raising any point that it was required to raise. In fact, a good many of them, probably the hon. and learned Member opposite will agree, raised points which it was not necessary or desirable to raise, because they really were in the end pure questions of fact.

Mr. SCOTT: In the Bill, the form is "a special ease," whereas in the Amendment to be moved from the Government side the term is "a case." Is there any difference between these two terms?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think the phrase in the Bill is an award stated "in the form of a special case," and that is one of the matters on which an objection was taken by the hon. Member for Bridgwater when we were discussing the English Clause, as being a much more curtailing form of procedure than a case stated in Income Tax cases. The experience that nearly everybody has had in Income Tax cases warrants my saying that in those eases you do have every reasonable and fair opportunity of dealing with cases of law; and not only that, but it has been held over and over again, in the House of Lords and elsewhere, that on all mixed questions of law and fact you can have an appeal. So far as pure questions of fact are concerned, where there is no mixture of law at all, there is no appeal, and under our proposal in those cases we do not
propose to give any appeal; and the reason is the reason which was stated by the hon. and learned Member, a reason which I think everybody knows, and that is that if you allow everyone to appeal to the High Court on any question of fact, it entirely defeats arbitration or referee proceedings or proceedings of that sort. There is no example that I know of where an appeal has been allowed on questions of that sort, or analogous to that, where an appeal has been allowed to the High Court on any question of fact unmixed with law.

Sir T. INSKIP: The hon. and learned Member means in the Income Tax Acts?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: No, in any Acts.

Sir T. INSKIP: What about the 1909–10 Act?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: With the exception of the 1909–10 Act. The hon. and learned Member has already referred to the argument I put up in regard to that, and that seems to me to be a sufficiently good argument. As regards any other Act that has survived in practice, or any other method that has survived in practice, I do not think that there is any example where a person who has an appeal to commissioners or referees or whoever they may be, has an appeal from them to the High Court on any point of fact he likes to raise. It has either been a pure question of law or a question of mixed law and fact. I think that the most generous measure of appeal is probably that laid down in the Income Tax Clauses. Everyone who knows what happens in those cases knows that you can in fact get any mixture of law and fact determined on appeal. That is why we suggest that this use of the land valuation court in Scotland can best be met by introducing, instead of the procedure we suggested, the precise procedure of the Income Tax Acts, using the same words with regard to a person being dissatisfied with the decision of questions of law, and introducing as regards Scotland the land valuation judges, because they are judges who understand and have to deal constantly, I understand, with matters of land valuation, but altering the constitution of the Scottish Court by adding
to that court an appeal on all points to the House of Lords in order that you might not get into the difficulties that were created under the De-rating Act of having one final court in Scotland and a different final court in England.
If hon. and learned Members or hon. Members opposite think that that is not a carrying out of the undertaking by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, I alone am responsible, because having taken into consideration the whole of the discussion upon the Committee stage on both of these Amendments, I myself inserted this form of alteration in the procedure in the two countries in the endeavour to carry out the spirit of what was promised, knowing quite well that hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite agree that it was impossible in this country, as they had said, to have appeal on points of fact allowed if you were to make this a workable proposition.

Mr. E. BROWN: I listened to the Solicitor-General's speech with more uneasiness than that with which I have listened to any speech which I have ever heard in the six years I have been in this House. I quite appreciate, as the whole House does, the attempt of the Solicitor-General to take responsibility for what has happened, but I suggest that that is quite irrelevant. The Government is a Government as a whole, and if there has been a want of liaison in this matter between those responsible for Clause 11 and Clause 31 as it now stands, that surely is not the fault of the Committee or the House, but is the responsibility of the Government. Surely we are not to be told at this stage, after a definite undertaking had been given by one Member of the Government—a very distinguished Member—that several days afterwards, when we come to consider the implementing of that undertaking, that another Member of the Government is to come down here in the name of a third Member who is not here—the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and throw over the first obligation.
I do not wish to continue to argue the case for Scotland. I may be allowed to say in passing that, having examined the Amendments, I was not quite clear, being a layman, whether or not the Amendment on Clause 31 accurately
carries out the undertaking given on behalf of Scotland, and what the Solicitor-General says now has filled me with the most intense disquiet. Let me come back to the English point, which is the point we are discussing now. I cannot allow the Solicitor-General to mislead the House or the country into believing that the discussion took place merely in terms of the Amendment which I moved. Any hon. Member who takes the trouble to read the Debate of 18th June, will only come to this conclusion, after hearing the speech of the Solicitor-General, that the hon. and learned Gentleman has been put up to make a perfectly accurate legal speech in terms of legal discussion on what was said, but that he throws over the whole substance of the promise given.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Craigie Aitchison): indicated dissent.

Mr. BROWN: The Lord Advocate shakes "his head, but we may be able to argue this out in terms of Scotland tomorrow night. I am now arguing with the Solicitor-General. Let me ask the House these four questions—first, what was in the mind of the Committee on 18th June; second, what was the promise of the Lord Advocate——[Interruption.] There was a fairly large Committee and an exceptionally large Committee for a Scottish Bill; and more than that, there is no question but that on the discussion the Lord Advocate himself was distinctly uneasy as to how the result would go if a Division had been taken. My own judgment is that if a Division had been taken, the Amendment would have been carried after the discussion that had taken place. The fact that a Minister of the Crown asked a Private Member to withdraw his Amendment on giving an undertaking, shows that there must have been substance in the case or apprehension as to the result of the Division. Everyone knows that such a request to withdraw an Amendment is only made in one of these two eventualities. I ask what was in the mind of the Committee; what was the promise of the Lord Advocate; why was the Amendment withdrawn, and what do the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendments mean?
What was in the mind of the Committee had nothing to do with the exact form of tribunal. Immediately the Lord Advocate mentioned the difficulty of the
House of Lords, I was prepared to concede the House of Lords as the final court as between England and Scotland. I was not concerned with the exact procedure of the valuation judges, but only with putting up the ease which was put before me by the Edinburgh Corporation, and I was only concerned to say that the valuation judges were the appropriate tribunal because they had for nearly 60 years been the tribunal in Scotland which dealt with cases of valuation. I did not even mention the kind of procedure adopted before, but I based my argument on the fact that they had dealt with all cases of valuation, and that there were principles clearly understood and precedents and practice established.
What was the argument about? The argument on which the promise of the Lord Advocate was given was based on one simple issue which I placed before the Committee. It was that it was unjust to start a new tax of this kind and give to the aggrieved taxpayer only the right to appeal on points of law, and that he ought to have the right of appeal on points of fact. I went so far as to point out that in great cities in Scotland, like Glasgow and Edinburgh, there would be not one valuer but scores, and since they all started without any previous practice or precedents laid down for them, they might quite easily come to quite different conclusionson points of fact. Therefore it was thoroughly unjust. That was the substance of my argument, as it is the substance of the case put to the Government by the Edinburgh Corporation. Perhaps I ought to read what the Edinburgh Corporation said. Let me quote from page 10 of their Memorandum, so that the Lord Advocate can verify it before to-morrow night:
It is a matter of grave concern that owners—particularly in the very special circumstances of valuations under the provisions of the Bill—will not be entitled to invoke the Courts in the event of their being aggrieved by the decision of the referee on points other than points of law. No doubt there is a risk of considerable litigation if an appeal to the Courts is allowed, but that appears to he inevitable in proposals of this nature. On the balance it appears to the reporters "—
that is, the reporters of the Corporation—
that the advantages of granting an appeal to the Courts on any ground outweigh the disadvantages. The experience of the derating cases under the recent Local Government
Acts is sufficient by itself to justify this opinion.
I pointed out, as a middle course, that the valuation judges under Scottish law might be a proper tribunal in order to get that established. My judgment is that the Committee understood, and the Lord Advocate understood, that what we were asking for was not a tribunal to deal either with points of law, or points of mixed fact and law, but a tribunal to which an aggrieved taxpayer under this new Act could appeal so that all his case might be put, and he might get justice against any valuer who might, in, his judgment, do him despite under this procedure. Speaking for myself, I say with a most profound sense of shame that, for the first time in my experience in this House, an undertaking given—unless some more light can be thrown upon the subject—by a responsible Member of the Government, a man whose word of honour is without reproach, has been turned down, now, at a future stage of the Bill, and we are not getting, at least for England, what was promised. My sense of shame is deepened because I myself did not raise the case of England. Those words were put into my mouth. The Lord Advocate stated, as one of his reasons for turning down my appeal, that England had no such appeal on a question of fact, and then I said, "It ought to be possible there, too." In face of a statement like that, how the Solicitor-General can come down and ask the Committee to believe that all that was decided on the night of the 18th of June was that we were to have an appeal in the terms of the present procedure of the land valuation judges in Scotland is beyond me as a layman trying to do fairly by my fellow Members in this House, and it will be beyond those who read the Debates next morning in Scotland, where they were published at great length. It is beyond me to know how the Solicitor-General can reconcile his position in this House as a guardian of legal honour and the honour of the Government in throwing over the Lord Advocate in the way he has done.

The LORD ADVOCATE: It is very unfortunate if there has been any misconception in this matter. For my part I do not think there has been misconception. I take the view, and I hope the
hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) will agree with me after I have stated my reasons for saying so, that we have implemented the undertaking which was given to accept the substance of the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Leith on 18th June. If he disagrees he is entitled to his own view, but I propose to put the position before the House and let the House judge. I hope it is quite unnecessary to say that if an undertaking is given by any Member of the Government the Government will honour that undertaking in the letter and in the spirit. If I thought that in what we are proposing to-day we were in any material respect not implementing an undertaking, I should come to the House and say that I had gone too far in giving it, and ask the House to release me from the obligation; but I do not take that view and I hope to convince the House that the whole misunderstanding is due to the fact that the hon. Member for Leith and the hon. and right hon. Members who supported him did not understand the Amendment they were moving. If they had understood what an appeal meant under the provisions of the Valuations of Lands Amendment Act, 1879, there could have been no misunderstanding.
I propose to satisfy the House that we have accepted the substance of the Amendment which the hon. Member had tabled. I can state the substance of it quite shortly. It involved three things. Two of them relate to Scotland only, and accordingly I am not going to discuss them, as they would not be germane to the question under discussion. The first point in the Amendment was that appeals should be allowed, so far as Scotland was concerned, to the Land Valuations Appeal Court. We are implementing that request. If the hon. Member for Leith has looked at the Amendment in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Clause 31, he will find that that part of the Amendment is being given effect to; but it does not arise here and I do not propose to discuss it. In the second place the hon. Member, as I understood his position, was anxious that there should be finality so far as the Valuation Appeal Court was concerned. I pointed out at the time that there was a very grave objection
to allowing finality to attach to the judgment of the Land Valuations Appeal Court as you have an appeal to the House of Lords in England, that uniformity was essential and that this was a point in the Amendment which we could not accept. On the third point, the position of the hon. Member for Leith, as I understood it, was this. He desired to broaden the basis of appeal—that is how I understood him—and I am here to say to the House that the undertaking which was given in that matter has been honoured and implemented. We have put appeals in this matter on precisely the same footing as under the practice prevailing in the matter of land valuation appeal in Scotland. As I have said already, if the hon. Member for Leith had understood what the practice in Scotland was he would have realised, and so would the hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip), that we have given him the substance of the Amendment which he moved on 18th June. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] If my hon. Friend will just wait a minute before he interrupts with his negatives he will find that I am right. Appeal in the matter of land valuation in Scotland is regulated by the Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1879. Section 7 of that Act defines the ground upon which one can appeal and provides this:
it shall be lawful for such person appealing or for such assessor, if he shall apprehend the determination of the Commissioners.… to be contrary to the true intent of the said Acts, and 6hall then declare himself dissatisfied with such determination, to require the said Commissioners or magistrates to state specially and to sign the case upon which the question arose, setting forth the facts proved, together with the determination thereupon.
"Let the House observe the phrase:
setting forth the facts proved, together with the determination thereupon.
The position in Scotland is that under the procedure of that Act the Valuation Committee sets forth specifically the facts that are found proved. When you come to the actual hearing of the appeal the judges have invariably said that they will not go behind the facts which have been specifically found by the Valuation Committee and they accept those facts. There are only two cases in which a valuation may be interfered with by the Valuation Appeal Court. One case is where it can be shown that the Valuation
Committee have proceeded upon a wrong principle of valuation. In that case the Valuation Appeal Court will intervene and put the matter right. The other case is where the committee in arriving at their finding have had no evidence on which that finding can be supported. That is where the whole misconception has arisen.
In dealing with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leith I used the expression "appeal upon fact." I think that was a loose expression to use and when I used that expression I was not suggesting that we were going to empower the Appellate Court to go beyond the specific findings of fact. I could not have had any such thought in my mind because I was familiar with the practice in land valuation appeals in Scotland where, as I have already stated, it is clearly established that the Appellate Court does not go beyond findings of fact.

Mr. SMITHERS: I have a copy in my hand of the original Act under which the land valuation court was appointed and the last paragraph says:
And accordingly to such opinion the valuation or assessment which shall be the cause of the appeal shall be altered or confirmed.
Is that not giving power to the High Court to determine a question of fact if they can alter or confirm the valuation of an assessment?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I think the question which the hon. Member has just put to me illustrates the ambiguity of the expressions "questions of fact" and "questions of law." Of course the valuation Appeal Court can alter a valuation if the valuation committee which made the valuation has proceeded on a wrong principle of valuation or has drawn an inference which cannot be supported by the facts. Similarly under the appeal provisions with which we are dealing here, does anyone imagine that if the commissioners have applied a wrong principle of valuation to a unit of land that that valuation is going to stand. The whole purpose of the appeal provision is to alter the valuation if good cause can be shown. In this matter a finding of the referee for the purposes of this Bill is in precisely the same position as the findings of the Valuation Court
for the purposes of land valuation in Scotland.

The Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Fareham is to allow an appeal on law and on fact. If the Government were to accept that Amendment as it stands the result would be that the Appellate Court could challenge the specific findings of the referee. If you give the Appellate Court that power you are not putting it in the same position as the Valuation Appeal Court in Scotland but you are putting it in a more favourable position because the Valuation Appeal Court has no power to go beyond specific findings of fact. A good deal of the criticism which has been made seems to have proceeded upon a misconception of what are the powers of the Valuation Appeal Court. The hon. Member for Leith is quite entitled to say that I used the expression "an appeal on facts." I think that that was a loose expression to use. I ask the House not to believe that in using that expression I meant that there should be an appeal upon every specific finding that might be made by the referee because no such intention was present in my mind and I do not think that any such intention was present in the mind of the hon. Member for Leith. I find in column 1314 of the Debate in Committee when Clause 11 was under discussion, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham was arguing for a less restricted right of appeal and he said:
I think, however, that the High Court may be trusted not to entertain appeals merely on questions of values about which they have had no experience and upon which they must depend on the evidence of the responsible people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1lth June. 1931: col. 1308. Vol. 253.]

According to that the position of the hon. and learned Member for Fareham was that if you give an unrestricted right of appeal your Appellate Court will not interfere.

Sir T. INSKIP: What I was saying was that it would not entertain appeals apart from the evidence, that is they would not allow the appeals to act on the evidence of valuers but on people of experience. I was not saying that they would not deal with questions of fact because my argument was that there was an appeal on questions of fact.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. and learned Gentleman, like myself, used the expression appeals on fact. On these questions of fact you cannot judge and an Appeal Court is bound to accept the findings arrived at, it may be by an arbitrator under the Workmen's Compensation Act or by an arbitrator under some other Statute.
What I had in view was that the appeal would not be limited merely to principles of valuation, but that it would be wide enough to cover the case where the Commissioners or the Referee purport to draw an inference of fact where there is no evidence to support it. That was what I had in view——[Interruption.] My hon. and learned Friend is very unsure of his ground, or he would not be holding these constant consultations. The position is perfectly plain. I accused the hon. and learned Gentleman of not knowing what valuation appeal in Scotland meant when he made his speech this evening. I doubt if he knows it now. Valuation appeals under the Act of 1879 do not mean appeals upon specific findings in fact. They mean a review of facts in this sense, that if the Commissioners have drawn an inference of fact which there is no evidence to support, then the valuation appeal Court would interfere, and that is precisely the position of the Government under the Chancellor's Amendment.
Let me remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of what the position is under the corresponding provision of the Income Tax Act. It has been said that in the matter of Income Tax appeals the appeal Court will not go behind specific findings in fact; but it is equally well said that if the Commissioners in an Income Tax matter draw an inference of fact which cannot be supported by the evidence the appeal Court will interfere with that finding, and that is precisely the position which is defined in this Bill. I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend can challenge that proposition, but as there has been so much obscurity in this matter I will read to him two very short passages from two distinguished Judges. Let me first read to him a passage from a judgment of the Master of the Rolls, Lord Cozens-Hardy, in the case of Gramophone, Limited v. Stanley. The reference is 1908, 2 K.B. 89. The Master of the Rolls was dealing with an Income
Tax appeal under Schedule D, and he said this:
It is undoubtedly true that if the Commissioners find a fact it is not open to this Court to question that finding unless there is no evidence to support it. If, however, the Commissioners state the evidence which was before them, and add that upon such evidence they hold that certain results follow, I think it is open, and it was intended by the Commissioners that it should be open, for the Court to say whether the evidence justified what the Commisioners held.
Similarly, Lord Chancellor Loreburn, in the case of Farmer v. Cottons Trustees, in 15 Appeal Cases, 922, said this—it was an appeal under the Income Tax Act—
The Commissioners have given us the relevant facts in detail and we can see for ourselves that taking those facts as found there are no materials at all upon which the conclusion they reach can be based. If the facts were such that on a true construction of the Act a different conclusion could reasonably be drawn, there would be no power for the Court of Appeal to interfere.
9.0 p.m.
The position seems clear beyond argument. Under the system of appeal in Income Tax matters presently obtaining, the appellate court will not interfere with specific findings of fact; but, on the other hand, the appellate court will interfere if an inference of fact is drawn that cannot be supported by the evidence, and that is precisely the position which you have under the Valuation Appeal Act in Scotland, as defined by the Act of 1879 and as interpreted by a long series of decisions with which I do not trouble the House; and it is precisely the position which we have under the Amendment which stands next on the Paper, in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Accordingly, I submit to the House that we have implemented the undertaking both in the letter and in the spirit, and that this distorted and ill-instructed criticism which has been directed against the Government would never have been levelled by the hon. and learned Member for Fareham to-night, or concurred in by the hon. Member for Leith, if either of them had taken the trouble to know what the provisions as to appeal are in Scotland; but in their anxiety to seize upon any weapon with which to beat the Government—[Interruption]—they have treated the House for a period of nearly an hour and a half to a demonstration in which I venture to say to the House that there is not one iota of substance.

Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid that after I have spoken I shall be included in the category of those who are described as of distorted imagination and ill-informed criticism, but at least I do not suffer from the disability with which the right hon. Gentleman has charged my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip) and the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), in respect of ignorance of the practice of the valuation courts in Scotland. It has been my fate in the past to appear many times in those courts, and as I think the Lord Advocate will agree, the forms which are in use there are just as familiar to me as they are to him.
This matter cannot be decided on the question of the technique of the valuation courts in Scotland, nor upon the particular form which is taken by the Amendment put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Leith. He is not a person familiar with the procedure of the Court in Scotland, but it was perfectly obvious from his speech what he wished to achieve. It was also perfectly obvious that the Lord Advocate understood it, and I would Venture to say that the Lord Advocate on that occasion was really not riding off upon a technical matter, as, indeed, it would have been very ungenerous of him to do, but that he was endeavouring to the best of his ability to meet a very formidable and reasonable case which had been put before the Committee, which obviously was largely sympathised with on both sides of the House, so far as one could gather from the interest that was taken, and which brought the position of the Lord Advocate into some little risk so far as the carrying of his Clause was concerned.
I was present throughout the discussion, and it is perfectly proper for me to intervene to-day. It would be quite appropriate upon an English Clause, because, after all, we are still one Kingdom; but, apart from that, the Clause now presented to the House rules the Scottish Clause. The Clause that will be fobbed off upon us to-morrow night follows upon the English Clause, and applies to the particular Clause adopted in Scotland the procedure of England, and gives the same rights so far as appeal is concerned as are going to be given by this Clause in the case of England, if the Clause be adopted.
Therefore every Scottish Member is interested in this Clause in so far as its main principles are concerned. When one considers that to-morrow night, for all the questions that arise in connection with Scottish procedure and an entirely different system of land holding, we are to have an hour and a half for the whole of the problems that Scotland raises, it is very natural that we should discuss this question now. I am not going into the merits of the case, because they have been sufficiently explained, but I wish to bring the Lord Advocate back to the character of his undertaking. That, after all, is a thing in which every one in the House is interested, no matter on which side he sits, because nothing worse can happen than that people should begin to distrust pledges that are given from the Government Benches, and obviously Debates would be prolonged to a very much greater extent than they are now if we had in every case to go into the Division Lobby before we were going to be assured that our particular point was accepted. Accordingly, may I refer to the speech of the hon. Member below me and to the answers that were given to him by the Lord Advocate. I cannot imagine that anyone can read these and have any doubt in his mind as to the conclusion that was reached. In putting forward his Amendment, the hon. Member modestly disclaimed any knowledge of the forms of procedure. He said he had suggested it as something that might be adopted, but, obviously, if there was any question about words or processes, he was willing that the Government should put the matter into proper shape. But he made his point perfectly plain, and what he said was:
I propose that there shall he an appeal not merely on points of law hut on points of fact.
The Lord Advocate knows the difference between an appeal on a point of fact and an appeal on a point of law. It is a phrase with which we are perfectly familiar. The general phrase "appeal on a point of fact" means that all the facts are open, and that the evidence comes before the Appeal Court in the shape in which they are entitled to judge it completely for themselves without any regard to the conclusions that have been arrived at in the Court below. The other
thing that he has been talking of to-day, the special case, is also perfectly well known and we know that, when a special case is stated, and the facts are found and disclosed in the stated case, although there is only an appeal on a point of law, if the facts disclosed do not found any reasonable ground for the conclusion at which the Court has arrived, that is treated as a point of law and may be upset. That kind of appeal by special case, or stated case, upon a point of law is poles asunder from what we know as an appeal on fact and law, which throws everything open. The phraseology which the hon. Member used was perfectly plain. He wanted an appeal upon fact as well as upon law, and he proceeded to give illustrations of what he meant. He said: "This is a new system and it is plain that there will be a great many differences which will agitate the minds of the people who are dealt with under it and, accordingly, they want to be satisfied that the facts have been properly judged as well as the law." He gave his illustration in this way. He said:
There will be legitimate differences between the valuator and the taxpayer as to matter of fact. The valuation of land, especially in the large, areas where the circumstances are very diversified, are bound to be intensified. Where the valuation is to be made on the assumption that the buildings on the site are non-existent, there will be no exact science in the valuation and, therefore, there must be a very large scope for legitimate differences of opinion as between the valuator on the one hand and the taxpayer on the other.
That is again on the question of fact. The Lord Advocate completely understood what the hon. Member meant and this was his reply. He did not dispute that he was not giving any appeal upon questions of fact. He did not say, "The English system, which is to be applied to you, is one," as he has been saying to-day, "in which the facts are looked at along with the points of law. If it is clear to the Court that there was no reasonable ground for arriving at that result upon the facts as stated that would be open." No explanation of that kind was ever forthcoming.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I assume that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment was familiar with the kind of appeal
that was open under the Valuation Appeal Act.

Sir R. HORNE: I regret to say so but I heard the whole discussion and I propose to give the Lord Advocate's answer. He said:
If this Amendment were given effect to, the result would be two-fold. In the first place, you would be allowing appeals on questions of fact in Scotland, whereas in England you are only going to allow appeals on questions of law.
He made his answer perfectly explicit and the matter was further exposed when he said:
I think it would be wrong to allow appeals on fact in Scotland and refuse them in England. This is pre-eminently a matter on which the Government are prepared to take the sense of the Committee. If it is the will of the Committee that this should be considered, we are prepared to give an undertaking to consider the matter and to embody the collected view in a Clause which would deal with the whole situation. If that would meet the wish of the Committee, then I suggest the Amendment should be withdrawn."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1931, col. 2023, Vol. 253.]
The hon. Member withdrew the Amendment upon that understanding. Every one was perfectly assured in his own mind that questions of fact were to be open

The LORD ADVOCATE: The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, familiar, as he has informed the House, with our practice in the matter of land valuation appeals. I want to ask him this question. Does he take my words as meaning that there was to be an appeal on specific findings of fact in a larger sense than there is under the Valuation Appeal Acts, and, if so, on what does he base that construction of the words that I used?

Sir R. HORNE: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman in complete sincerity that I understood that he was throwing open the whole question of fact and law on the appeal. Let us have clearly in recollection that that was not such a wide assumption. The Act of 1909–10 embodied an appeal both on fact and on law in the sense that I am now putting before the House, and not in the restricted sense in which the Lord Advocate is now interpreting the undertaking that he gave. Every lawyer certainly understands the difference between an appeal on fact and on law. I was perfectly familiar with the position under the Land Valuation Appeal Acts. I knew also exactly what the procedure was as the right hon. Gentleman has
expounded it to-day, but that is a totally different thing from what you call an appeal on fact and on law, the appeal that was given under the Act of 1909–10. I have found no one who had any doubt at all as to what the Lord Advocate had done. My recollection is that in the following morning's papers attention was called to the fact that the Lord Advocate had given away a position which was maintained most vehemently in the other sense by the Solicitor-General, and that something would require to be done in order to bring these two attitudes into some kind of consonance, but no one had any doubt at all as to what the undertaking meant, neither publicly nor privately.
Then my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham intervened and got, as he understood, an undertaking that England was to be considered in the same way as Scotland and, of course, the Lord Advocate's anxiety to bring the two systems of procedure into co-relation was perfectly understandable. It would be an inconvenient thing that you should have appeals stopping at the Land Valuation Appeal Courts in Scotland and going on to the House of Lords in England because then you might have decisions given in those two separate cases with no appeal to an ultimate body fitted to overrule both. The Lord Advocate's chief anxiety was to discover a way in which that could be met. But that difficulty is perfectly easily met by doing what they did in the Statute of 1909–10. There the appeal in Scotland was to the same body as formed the Land Valuation Appeal Court, but constituted under that particular Statute as, not the Land Valuation Appeal Court, but the Valuation Appeal Court. The appeal to that body of judges, being the same as under the Land Valuation Appeal Court, was still open to further appeal to the House of Lords.
The method of obtaining the co-relation which the Lord Advocate desiderated was open and obvious, and all that the Government required to do in order to bring the two countries under the same method of appeal was to apply some such arrangement as that. I make the observation which I have made today with a grave feeling both of perturbation and of disappointment. Nothing can be more unacceptable to me than
that I should have to rise in my place and make this criticism of what I regarded as an absolutely definite and honourable undertaking on the part of the Lord Advocate, and was so regarded by everybody, certainly those sitting on this side of the House and by everybody outside who commented upon it in the public Press. It is a great misfortune to the House that our traditions should be called into question in any shape or form, and I beg the Government to reconsider their attitude upon this matter and to give full implement to the undertaking which the Lord Advocate gave.

Sir BOYD MERRIMAN: I am bound to say, having listened to every word of this discussion, that I think it is one of the most disquieting incidents that have taken place in the House of Commons since I have been here. Let me say at once that I am not in the least concerned as to whether, so far as Scottish law is concerned, there has been any complete implementing of what the Lord Advocate indicated he would possibly do as regards Scotland. What we are concerned with is that there has been the plainest possible breach of the clearest possible Parliamentary bargain. The Solicitor-General and the Lord Advocate have dealt with this matter, I am sorry to say, with a levity which is a little unfortunate. The Solicitor-General said, among other things, that there might be Members going into the Division Lobby who had not heard the Debate and because at the time when the Solicitor-General was speaking the House was empty and many Members have since come in, I am venturing to restate from the OFFICIAL REPORT what was the nature of the bargain. Both the Law Officers who have addressed the House on this matter have put forward a sort of special pleading. About the nature of the Amendment put forward for Scotland by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), the Lord Advocate asserted that he did not understand his own Amendment, and that was the explanation of the form the discussion took. I am going to read with the permission of the House—they have been referred to before—four passages which make the position absolutely plain. The hon. Member for Leith——

The LORD ADVOCATE: rose—— [Interruption.]

Sir B. MERRIMAN: The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General addressed the House at considerable length, and I have less than 10 minutes to deal with the matter. The hon. Member for Leith ended his speech in these words:
I hope we shall not be told that it is not necessary to have an appeal or that, if it is necessary, it should be brought into conformity with the Income Tax appeal in Great Britain.
And may I point out that the whole controversy was, in this case as far as England was concerned, that we wanted to have the sort of appeal allowed under the old Land Tax Act and not the sort of appeal allowed under Income Tax. The hon. Member went on:
This is a case where Scottish law and practice demand a separate Court, and I shall have the sympathy of the Committee with me on the major point, namely, that there ought to be an appeal on such vast new procedure, not merely on points of law but on points of fact.
That concluded the hon. Member's speech. The Lord Advocate, after one of my hon. Friends had addressed the Committee, said that the Amendment
undoubtedly raises a point of very great importance, upon which the Government would be quite prepared to take the view of the Committee, but we think it right that the Committee should appreciate what exactly this Amendment means. If this Amendment were given effect to, the result would be two-fold. In the first place, you would be allowing appeals on questions of fact in Scotland, whereas in England you are only going to allow appeals on questions of law.
Mr. E. BROWN: It ought to be done there.
The LORD ADVOCATE: At any rate, it has not been done "—
referring, of course, to the discussion on 11th June—
What I am concerned to point out to the Committee is that you will be making an anomaly on that point.
After the hon. Member for Leith had intervened again, the Lord Advocate said:
We are willing to take the substance of this Amendment, but it is undesirable to take it in the form in which it now stands, because we are anxious to correlate the position in the two countries.
The hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) then intervened to make it perfectly plain. He said:
I hope the Government will make some arrangements which will give the citizens in England the same right of appeal on questions
of fact as it is proposed to give to the people of Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th June, 1931; cols. 2020–24, Vol. 253.]
Then the hon. Member was prepared to withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that the Lord Advocate would meet the point of substance, both with regard to England and to Scotland. If ever words can make a thing plain, I submit that it was as plain as words could make it that the Government were prepared to reconsider the matter both for England and for Scotland, because we cannot have one law for England and another law for Scotland, and that they were prepared to reconsider it according to the substance of the matter which has been put forward in the Amendment by the hon. Member for Leith. The Solicitor-General, if he will forgive me, gave us a lecture on the Scottish law upon which he is, like myself, a layman. I would like to remind him that the English discussion on this subject ended in those words. I ventured to address the Committee about this matter, and in dealing with the question of who should have the right of appeal I gave certain instances. The discussion went on to the question of feu duties, ground landlords and the rest. The Solicitor-General then said that wild horses would not drag him into a discussion of Scottish law. It now appears perfectly plainly from this discussion—I am not in the least concerned about Scottish law—that in Scotland, according to what the Lord Advocate has said, the evidence is presented on appeal and not merely a statement of what the Commissioners have found, and it is reviewed, whereas in England the facts are stated in concise form and behind that statement of fact there is no investigation. The Solicitor-General said that on mixed questions of law and fact there is an appeal. In one sense that is true, because there is an appeal on law, but in so far as the facts are stated there is no sort of appeal on the case stated into the questions of fact which emerge. It is absolutely common knowledge that over and over again a point of law cannot be raised on the cases stated, because they are stated out of Court. I am perfectly certain that the Solicitor-General would not dispute that position.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I certainly disagree.

Sir B. MERRIMAN: That is a case on which the Solicitor-General's superior officer—for the Lord Advocate is senior to him—has given, later than he has, a definite undertaking to the House. To tell this House that the Lord Advocate, when he was talking about taking the sense of the Committee, meant that the sense of the Committee as far as England was concerned had already been taken some time before, is simply to trifle with the House of Commons. The Solicitor-General said that if the Lord Advocate went further in this matter, then he, the Solicitor-General, at any rate took the full responsibility for what was being done now. Where is collective ministerial responsibility if this is the way in which the House of Commons is to be treated?

Mr. SCOTT: In the few moments which remain, I should like to say, as one who has had very considerable experience of valuation appeals in Scotland, that I accept the Lord Advocate's statement of the law in Scotland. I entirely appreciate the indignation of my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), because he was thinking

of a different thing from that of which the Lord Advocate was thinking. If the Lord Advocate had used the language to me which he used to my hon. Friend, I should certainly not have misunderstood him at all. What the House at the moment has to consider is whether we are to accept the Amendment which has been moved from the Conservative benches, namely, to admit an appeal to the Appeal Court on questions of fact; in other words, whether the Appeal Court is to have before it witnesses who have already appeared before the court of first instance or whether they are to confine themselves solely to the statement of the evidence.

It being half-past Nine of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders of the House of 4th and 29th June, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 276; Noes, 238.

Division No. 367.]
AYES
[9.30 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Calne, Hall-, Derwent
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Adamson, W. M. (Stall., Cannock)
Cameron, A. G.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Cape, Thomas
Gray, Milner


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Charleton, H. C.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Alpass, J. H.
Chater, Daniel
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)


Ammon, Charles George
Church, Major A. G.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Angell, Sir Norman
Clarke, J. S.
Groves, Thomas E.


Arnott, John
Cluse, W. S.
Grundy, Thomas W.


Aske, Sir Robert
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Ayles, Walter
Compton, Joseph
Halt, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Cove, William G.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Cripps, Sir Stafferd
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)


Barnes, Alfred John
Daggar, George
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)


Barr, James
Dallas, George
Harris, Percy A.


Batey, Joseph
Dalton, Hugh
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Haycock, A. W.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Haydey, Arthur


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hayes, John Henry


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Day, Harry
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Benson, G.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Birkett, W. Norman
Dukes, C.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Blindell, James
Duncan, Charles
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Bondfield, Rt. Hen. Margaret
Ede, James Chuter
Herriotts, J.


Bowen, J. W.
Edmunds, J. E.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Hirst, W. (Bradford. South)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Ekniey, Viscount
Hoffman, P. C.


Brockway, A. Ferner
Foot, Isaac
Hollins, A.


Bromfield, William
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Hopkin, Daniel


Bromley, J.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Brooke, W.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Isaacs, George


Brothers, M.
Gibbins, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Brown, C W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Gill, T. H.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Buchanan, G.
Gillett, George M.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Burgess, F. G.
Glassey, A. E.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Burgln, Dr. E. L.
Gossling, A. G.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Gould, F.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A- (Presten)


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Sinkinson, George


Kelly, W. T.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sitch, Charles H.


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Mort, D. L.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Muff, G.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Kinley, J.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Kirkwood, D.
Murnin, Hugh
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Knight, Holford
Naylor, T. E.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Noel Baker, P. J.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Noel-Buxton. Baroness (Norfolk, No
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Oldfield, J. R.
Sorensen, R.


Law, A. (Rossendale)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Lawrence, Susan
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Stephen, Campbell


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Palin, John Henry
Strauss, G. R.


Lawson, John James
Paling, Wilfrid
Sullivan, J.


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Palmer, E. T.
Sutton, J. E


Leach, W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Perry, S. F.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Lees, J.
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Tillett, Ben


Leonard, W.
Pole, Major D. G.
Tinker, John Joseph


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Potts, John S.
Toole, Joseph


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Price, M. P.
Tout, W. J.


Logan, David Gilbert
Pybus, Percy John
Townend, A. E.


Longbottom, A. W.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Longden, F.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Vaughan, David


Lunn, William
Raynes, W. R.
Viant, S. P.


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Richards, R.
Walkden, A. G.


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Walker, J.


McElwee, A.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Wallace, H. W.


McEntee, V. L.
Ritson, J.
Watkins, F. C.


McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).


McKinlay, A.
Romeril, H. G.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


MacLaren, Andrew
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Wellock, Wilfred


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Rowson, Guy
Welsh, James (Paisley)


McShane, John James
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
West, F. R.


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Westwood, Joseph


Manning, E. L.
Sanders, W. S.
White, H. G.


Mansfield, W.
Sandham, E.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Lady wood)


March, S.
Sawyer, G. F.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Marcus, M.
Scott, James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Markham, S. F.
Scurr, John
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Marley, J.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Marshal, Fred
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Mathers, George
Sherwood, G. H.
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Matters, L. W.
Shield, George William
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Maxton, James
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Messer, Fred
Shillaker, J. F.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Middleton, G.
Shinwell, E.
Wise, E. F.


Mliner, Major J.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Montague, Frederick
Simmons, C. J.



Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Morley, Ralph
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Thurtle.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Broadbent, Colonel J.
Colville, Major D. J.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Cooper, A. Duff


Albery, Irving James
Brown, Brig. Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Buchan, John
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Buchan-Hepburn, p. G. T.
Cowan, D. M.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Cranborne, Viscount


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Butler, R. A.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.


Baillie-Hamliton, Hon. Charles W.
Butt, Sir Alfred
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Cunliffe-Lister. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Campbell, E. T.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Balniel, Lord
Castle Stewart, Earl of
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)


Beaumont M. W.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Dawson, Sir Philip


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Dixey, A. C.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Chapman, Sir S.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Christle, J. A.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Boyce, Leslie
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Bracken, B.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Everard, W. Lindsay


Brass, Captain Sir William
Colfox, Major William Philip
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Briscoe, Richard George
Colman, N. C. D.
Ferguson, Sir John




Fermoy, Lord
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Fielden, E. B.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Ford, Sir P. J.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Savery, S. S.


Frece, Sir Walter de
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Ganzonl, Sir John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Skelton, A. N.


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Ht. Hon. Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gower, Sir Robert
Marjorlbanks, Edward
Smithers, Waldron


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Somerset, Thomas


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Millar, J. D.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Ht. Hon. Sir B.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Muirhead, A. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hanbury, C.
Nail-Cain, A. R. N.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Hartington, Marquess of
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Thompson, Luke


Haslam, Henry C.
O'Connor, T. J.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
O'Neill, Sir H.
Train, J.


Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Peake, Captain Osbert
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Penny, Sir George
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wayland, Sir William A


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wells, Sydney R.


Hurd, Percy A.
Purbrick, R.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ramsbotham, H.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Inskip, Sir Thomas
Reid- David D. (County Down)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Iveagh, Countess of
Remer, John R.
Withers, Sir John James


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Womersley, W. J.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell



Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Moiton)
Ross, Ronald D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain Wallace.


Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)



Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Salmon, Major I.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given to that part of the Bill to be concluded at half-past Nine of the Clock at this day's Sitting.

Amendment proposed: In page 10, line 37, to leave out from the word "that," to the second word "of," in line 40, and to insert instead thereof the words:

"immediately after the determination by the referee of an appeal under this Subsection any party to the appeal may, if dissatisfied with the determination as being erroneous in point of law, declare his dissatisfaction to the referee who heard the appeal, and having done so, may, within such time as may be limited by rules of Court, require the referee to state and sign a case for the opinion thereon."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Question put, "That the Amendment be made."

The House divided: Ayes, 280; Noes, 236.

Division No. 368.]
AYES.
[9.41 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Aske, Sir Robert
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Attlee, Clement Richard
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Ayles, Walter
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Benson, G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)


Alpass, J. H.
Barnes, Alfred John
Birkett, W. Norman


Ammon, Charles George
Barr, James
Blindell, James


Angell, Sir Norman
Batey, Joseph
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret


Arnott, John
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Bowen, J. W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Pybus, Percy John


Broad, Francis Alfred
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Brockway, A. Fanner
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown.)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Bromfield, William
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Raynes, W. R.


Bromley, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Richards, R.


Brooke, W.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Brothers, M.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Ritson, J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Kelly, W. T.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Bychanan, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Romeril, H. Q.


Bargess, F. G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Kinley, J.
Rowson, Guy


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Kirkwood, D.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Calne, Hall-, Derwent
Knight, Holford
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cameron, A. G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cape, Thomas
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Carter, W. (St Pancras, B. W.)
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Sanders, W. S.


Charleton, H. C.
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Sandham, E.


Chater, Daniel
Lawrence, Susan
Sawyer, G. F.


Clarke, J. S.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Scott, James


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Scurr, John


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour.
Leach, W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Compton, Joseph
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Sherwood, G. H.


Cove, William G.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shield, George William


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lees, J.
Shields, Dr. Drummond


Daggar, George
Leonard, W.
Shillaker, J. F.


Dallas, George
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shinwell, E.


Dalton, Hugh
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Logan, David Gilbert
Simmons, C. J.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Longbottom, A. W.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Longden, F.
Sinkinson, George


Day, Harry
Lunn, William
Sitch, Charles H.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Dukes, C.
McElwae, A.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Duncan, Charles
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Ede, James Chuter
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Edmunds, J. E.
McKinlay, A.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
MacLaren, Andrew
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Elmley, Viscount
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Sorensen, R.


Foot, Isaac
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
McShane, John James
Stephen, Campbell


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Strauss, G. R.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Sullivan, J


Gibbins, Joseph
Manning, E. L.
Sutton, J. E.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Mansfield, W.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Gill, T. H.
March, S.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Gillett, George M.
Marcus, M
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Glassey, A. E
Markham, S. F.
Tillett, Ben


Gossling, A. G.
Marley, J.
Tinker, John Joseph


Gould, F.
Marshall, Fred
Toole, Joseph


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mathers, George
Tout, W. J.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Matters, L. W.
Townend, A. E.


Gray, Milner
Maxton, James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Messer, Fred
Vaughan, David


Grenfell, U. R. (Glamorgan)
Middleton, G.
Viant, S. P.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Milner, Major J.
Walkden, A. G.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Montague, Frederick
Walker, J.


Groves, Thomas E.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Wallace, H. W.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Morley, Ralph
Watkins, F. C.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mort, D. L.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Muff, G.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Muggeridge, H. T.
West, F. R.


Harris, Percy A.
Murnin, Hugh
Westwood, Joseph


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Naylor, T. E.
White, H. G.


Haycock, A. W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Hayday, Arthur
Noel Baker, P. J.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Hayes, John Henry
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Oldfield, J. R.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Herriotts, J.
Paling, Wilfrid
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Palmer, E. T.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wise, E. F.


Hoffman, P. C.
Perry, S. F.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Hollins, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Hopkin, Daniel
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Pole, Major D. G.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Thurtle.


Isaacs, George
Potts, John S.



John, William (Rhondda, West)
Price, M. P.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Erskins, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Albery, Irving James
Everard, W. Lindsay
Nicholson, Col- Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
O'Connor, T. J.


Allan, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Ferguson, Sir John
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Fermoy, Lord
O'Neill, Sir H.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W
Fielden, E. B.
Ormsby Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Atholl, Duchess of
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Baillie-Hamliton, Hon. Charles W.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Forestler-Welker. Sir L.
Penny, Sir George


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Frece, Sir Walter de
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Balniel, Lord
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Beaumont, M. W.
Gazonl, Sir John
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey a Otley)
Purbrick, R.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ramsbotham, H.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gower, Sir Robert
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Remer, John R.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Boyce, Leslie
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bracken, B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ross, Ronald D.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Salmon, Major I.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Hanbury, C.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hartington, Marquess of
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Buchan, John
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Haslam, Henry C.
Savery, S. S.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Butler, R. A.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Skelton, A. N.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Campbell, E. T.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Smithers, Waldron


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Somerset, Thomas


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Somerville, D. G. (Wittesden, East)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Iveagh, Countess of
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Chapman, Sir S.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Christle, J. A.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Knox, Sir Alfred
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Cockerill, Brig-General Sir George
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Moiton)
Thompson, Luke


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thomson, Sir F.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Colman, N. C. D.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Titchfield, Major the Marquees of


Colville, Major D. J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Cooper, A. Duff
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Train, J.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Liewellin, Major J. J.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Cowan, D. M.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Cranborne, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Com, O. (Handsw'th)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Macquisten, F. A.
Wells, Sydney R.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Williams, Charles (Devon. Torquay)


Dalrympie-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Marjorlbanks, Edward
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Withers, Sir John James


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Milne, Wardtaw-, J. S.
Womersley, W. J.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)


Dixey, A. C.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)



Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Eden, Captain Anthony
Mulrhead, A. J.
Captain Margesson and Captain Wallace.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Nail-Cain, A. R. N.

Further Amendments made: In page 11, line 6, leave out the word "unit."

In line 11, leave out the word "unit," and insert instead thereof the word "land."

In line 33, leave out from the word "which" to the word "any" in line 35.

In line 40, after the word "under," insert the words "Sub-section (1) of."

In page 12, line 18, at the end, insert the words:
(7) The Reference Committee for England constituted by Section thirty-three of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, shall, in relation to the powers and duties of the Committee under this Part of this Act, consist of the persons mentioned in that Section, together with the President of the Law Society."—[The Solicitor-General.]

CLAUSE 14.—(Assessment and recovery of tax.)

Amendment made: In page 14, line 34, leave out from the word "mortgagee," to the end of the Clause.—[The Solicitor-General.]

CLAUSE 15.—(Reduction of land value for purposes of assessment to tax.)

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 15, line 34, to leave out the words "comprising agricultural land," and to insert instead thereof the words:
in respect of which a cultivation value is shown by the entries relating thereto.
There are two further Amendments later on the Paper which are closely related to this Amendment. They are drafting Amendments

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that, coupled with this Amendment, are two further Amendments on the Paper which he says are drafting Amendments. In each of those further Amendments I see that the words "an amount" are to be substituted for the words "a sum." Would he be good enough to tell us what is the meaning of that alteration?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The words "a sum" are in Sub-section (1, a and b) of the Clause and relate to "four times the annual value," and "seven-eighths of the land value of the unit." It was thought more proper to
have the words "an amount," because it is not a sum. It is an amount.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 15, line 36, leave out the words "a sum," and insert instead thereof the words "an amount."—[The Solicitor -General.]

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 15, line 36, to leave out the word "four," and to insert instead thereof the word "five."
The House will remember that this Clause was inserted in the Bill after various "alarums and excursions" during the Committee stage, as the result of a compromise arrived at, somewhat unwillingly, between hon. Members below the Gangway and the Chancellor of the Evchequer. In the original form in which hon. Members below the Gangway proposed their Amendment, it provided that the amount paid under Schedule A, according to the existing law, should be deducted from the amount of tax payable under the Government proposal. Their first attempt at such an Amendment was ruled out of order, and when their second attempt had also been ruled out of order, an Amendment was put down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which works out in effect to this—that in computing the liability to tax an amount equal to four times the annual value of the unit for Income Tax purposes under Schedule A shall be deducted from the land value ascertained under Clause 8 of this Bill and that the tax should be levied on the balance, or on one-eighth of the land value of the unit.
One of the questions which I wish to put to the Solicitor-General is why the figure four should have been selected. I could understand it if he had put a reasonable capitalisation on the annual value, deducted that from the land value ascertained under this Bill, and charged the full tax on the balance. I do not know that that necessarily would have been a very good method. It has its drawbacks but it would, at least, have been intelligible. How are you going to arrive at four times the annual value? The annual value, after all, depends largely on the user. I take for example a site occupied by a well-designed cinema theatre, expensively built, filled with the latest luxuries and showing the latest
films, which yields to the owners or lessees a very large income. The value in that case under Schedule A would be very high compared with the value of the land on which it is situated. On the contrary, a piece of land may be occupied by buildings which are coming towards the end of a long lease and on which at the moment there is not any very great value under Schedule A. The site may be valuable but under restrictions in the lease perhaps, neither the owner nor the lessee can make use of and develop that site, and in such a case four times the Schedule A value will be rather low compared with the site value. I fail to see either the justice or the policy of adopting four times the Schedule A value as the basis for this deduction.
10.0 p.m.
Obviously by doing so you are encouraging people to put on their land when this tax comes into operation the most expensive buildings and the tallest buildings that they are allowed to erect under local regulations. If my memory serves me aright, the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) when discussing the position in New York, pointed out that the value of a skyscraper is approximately equal to the value of the site. I am not challenging his assumption, but obviously it would be to the interest of anybody who owns land in urban districts, once this peculiar proposal comes into operation, to erect upon that land the very highest building that the law or the by-laws of the particular city will permit. In London there is a limitation of something like 80 feet, but I have no doubt that, once this Measure becomes operative, heavy pressure will be put on the London County Council to extend that limit so that buildings can be erected which bear the highest possible proportion of value compared with the site. The more valuable are the buildings, obviously the greater the amount which will be deducted from the land value for the purposes of the tax, under this arrangement as to four times the Schedule A value, and the smaller the amount of tax which that site will have to bear.
May I take another aspect of this proposal? Everybody, I think, agrees that in the modern development of our towns and suburbs it is highly desirable that the number of houses to the acre should
be as small as possible. The modern idea is to limit strictly the number of houses to the acre, to spread the development as widely as possible and, wherever possible, to provide each house with a garden. If you are going to deduct four times the Schedule A value, it obviously is the interest of the builder, the owner of the land, and even the individual people who occupy the houses, that the buildings should bear the largest possible proportion of value to the actual site value, and the effect will be to encourage that intensive development which we are all anxious to avoid. That must inevitably result if we try to mix up these two hopelessly incompatible and contradictory principles. Site value, if it has any meaning at all, is charged on capital value and is charged irrespective of the user of the land, but Schedule A is Income Tax which is derived from the actual user of the land as it is—and of the buildings, as I am reminded. It is a tax derived from actual use on an annual value allowing certain deductions in respect of repairs and maintenance. That annual value may have no relation whatever to site value, and in attempting to come to an arrangement which would satisfy the conscience of the Liberal party, or at least would not violate that conscience too greatly, the Government, as I say, have attempted to combine these two contradictory and incompatible principles. The result is that the anomalies under this proposal will be even worse than those which would have arisen had the tax been left in its original state.
Therefore, I ask the Solicitor-General why the Government have chosen the arbitrary figure of four? I should think that it is very difficult to argue that the value of the sites in any given area is one-fourth of the total value of the land under its present user. That is a position which may occur or may not occur, but I do not know if the Solicitor-General has any figures to support the proposition that the proportion of one-fourth or one-fifth—I am not certain how it works out—of the value of the land unit, is a reasonable value to put on the site and that the remainder is a reasonable value to put on the development. I shall be interested to hear if he has any figures or arguments in support of that proposition.
I fail to see any reason for putting in the figure "four," and I find a little difficulty in defending the figure "five" which I propose in its place, but I am doing it on the Solicitor-General's assumption that the figure "four" is correct. Presumably, when the Land Tax is in operation it will be, like other charges, like tithe, like the old Land Tax, etc., a charge against the annual income which the taxpayer will be entitled to deduct. Therefore, his Schedule A assessment will go down. If that is the case, I should say, assuming, which I do not for the moment, the Solicitor-General's assumption is correct, some allowance ought to be made. By putting on this tax you are lowering the Schedule A assessment. You are lowering its value, and therefore the concession which apparently is given to hon. Members below the Gangway will be very much less valuable than they think, because Schedule A will be down, and therefore four times Schedule A will be down. For that reason I would suggest that if the Attorney-General's assumption is correct, five is more nearly the correct figure than four. I am still to be convinced that four is the correct figure, and still more am I to be convinced that the attempt to mix up a tax levied on capital value with an assessment levied on what the land actually brings in at the moment, is either feasible or desirable.

Captain CAZALET: I beg to second the Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) said that the tax would have been better if it had been left in its original state. I wonder how many landowners who support the hon. and gallant Member take the same view that he does on that point. I suggest that if he put that proposition forward to his friends who own land in built-up areas he would not find them in agreement with him, although no doubt the more public spirited of them might.

Captain BOURNE: I said it would be not as anomalous; not certainly lighter.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: The words that the hon. and gallant Member used were that it would have been better
if it had been left in its original state. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) is not going to get me by making an interruption of that kind. The hon. and gallant Member asked me why we adopted the figure "four." The reason why this system was adopted was fully explained yesterday and I do not propose to go again into the general reasons for the adoption of this system to arrive at the net land value which is to be taxed at 1d. in the pound capital value. The reason why the figure "four" was taken was because that was the figure which was arrived at in the discussions which led to the compromise.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What reason is there in that?

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: The right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) asks me what reason there is in that. The reason is that, having arrived at a compromise, the figure "four" was set down. If he asks me why I think the figure "four" is a reasonable figure I will tell him. It is because one is attempting to arrive at some figure which will give a measure of the use which is being made of the land unit for the purposes of the community and, as was explained yesterday, the rough criterion of that is Schedule A, because that is fixed upon the price that is paid for letting or taking the land from year to year, and that gives the rough value as regards the whole of the site and the buildings upon it. If you start with the view that where land is substantially fully developed you want to reduce the tax to the lower level of one-eighth of a penny, then taking the rough figure "four" will give you that result, in our opinion, and it is upon that basis that the figure "four" has been taken. You take a particular unit of land and the varying buildings on that unit—you cannot compare unit with unit—and as you progressively increase the utility of the buildings on the land you get a progressively increasing Schedule A. If you multiply that by "four," you will arrive when you get fully developed land at about the figure of one-eighth only. That is the reason why the figure "four" has been adopted.
I do not propose to go into the general argument as regards this method of
arriving at the net land value, but I do want to comment on one further thing which the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford said, with which I entirely agree, and that is that a tax on land values is a totally different thing from Schedule A, and the tax under Schedule A. I agree with that statement, and it is for the reason that we look upon the tax on land values as a new tax. It will not be a tax which will be deducted in arriving at Schedule A. It will be an additional tax. [HON. MEMBEES: "Double taxation."] Therefore the reason that the hon. and gallant Member gave for converting four into five disappears. I know no other reason that he has put forward.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Will the Solicitor-General endeavour to develop to the House his reasons for coming to the conclusion that four times the annual value would bring the exemption in the ease of a fully developed land unit up to that amount which would give it total exemption but for the one-eighth of a penny that is to be charged?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think I have said so already. It is a matter of opinion. It cannot be a matter of anything else. There is no evidence that I know of, because there has not been a valuation carried out on which to test the opinion. The opinions on this side of the House——

Sir K. WOOD: And of the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel).

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: And the opinions of hon. Members below the Gangway when they meet in compromise, come out at the figure "four."

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the Solicitor-General answer this question? Does he agree that the effect of this provision is that the value of buildings must be four times the value of the site in order to make four times the annual value under Schedule A equivalent to the value of the land unit? That is a mathematical certainty, and that being so, the criterion then becomes this, whether the site is only fully developed when the buildings upon the site are worth four times the site itself. That is a thing which everybody can judge for himself, and I want to know from the hon. and learned Gentleman why he thinks that
it must be four times the value of the site before the site can be considered to be fully developed?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That is not the basis upon which this proceeds. The basis is that, taking a particular site, not comparing one site with another, you got by a multiplication of this sort, with a progressively rising Schedule A, a progressive diminution of the effective amount of land value which is taxed, and when you take a figure of four times the Schedule A which includes site value as well as buildings, we are of opinion that you will then ultimately reach the case where you get a minimum land value, and that is one-eighth of the original land value.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not my point at all.

Captain CAZALET: It is obvious, from the answer of the Solicitor-General, that there is no reason whatsoever for the figure 4 being put in. The nearest approach to a reason that he has given is that the figure 4 is the least that the Members of the Liberal party would take. That is a curious basis upon which to frame legislation which will affect very severely a large section of the population of this country. Surely the Solicitor-General has forgotten to mention the fact that hardly any two areas in the whole country are similar, and that there are hundreds of differing factors which must alter the situation in each case, and as long as you continue to have a purely arbitrary figure 4, based upon neither rhyme nor reason, you are bound to produce not only anomalies but great injustices as well. Many cases have been pointed out already. My right hon. Friend in front of me said that when the annual value is multiplied by four, presumably the Government, consider that that area of land is fully and properly developed.
The other evening we had actual instances from Glasgow and from the City of London where it was shown that the building laws prevented any buildings being erected on those particular spots, the annual value of which, multiplied by four, could possibly equal the site value. I notice that on that occasion the hon. Member who answered for the Government said that those were exceptional circumstances—every case is an exceptional
circumstance—and I notice that he failed to reply to or make an observation upon those instances, which were multiplied by various Members from these benches. I notice also that he omitted to reply to the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), that the incidence of this tax would mean that those individuals who were engaged in developing land would be prone to build upon each acre as many houses as they could—exactly the opposite of what we have all contended, in this House and elsewhere, should be the case. Surely the proposal of the Government would mean that those who are developing land will be inclined, after this Measure comes into operation, to build on a particular acre more houses than it is desirable to build, because the more houses there are, obviously the less tax the owner of the land will have to pay.
If that is not so, I hope the Solicitor-General will answer it, but I notice that he avoided that point. I presume that he admits that there are areas in London, Glasgow, and other big cities where four times the annual value can never equal the site value, owing to the operation of building laws and other matters. If that is a fact, and he agrees that it is, there is nothing more to be said, except that he must admit that there are instances of a most glaring anomaly which is created under this Bill. The learned Solicitor-General said, "I cannot give you any reason. It just happens to be the figure on which we compromised, after a great deal of discussion." I gather that that was the gist of his remarks. "Having at last settled upon this mysterious number of four, we think we had better stick to it." I expect the Government are grateful to have got some figure to which the Liberal party could agree, and for their sakes it would be as well that they should keep to that figure, which has enabled them to tide over a very difficult period in their life and to remain in office.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: The Solicitor-General has shown a deplorable lack of calibre in this matter. He was asked the opinion of the Government, or the liberal party, or both, why four was a proper denominator in this connection, and when we asked upon what his opinion
is based, he said that it was baaed upon nothing, but was just an opinion. The Solicitor-General knows perfectly well that when he is asked an opinion as a lawyer, it is based, if not upon evidence, at any rate upon other considerations—let us call them facts. On a previous occasion in this Debate the Lord Advocate, who is not in his place—perhaps the mathematical formula is too much for him—said the expression "facts" was an extremely loose expression; "facts" is not so narrow an expression as "evidence." We would like to know upon what facts he gave his opinion that four was the proper denominator. He tried to impress the House that it was a scientific mathematical calculation based upon the considered view of a valuer, and that it was a kind of mock auction between the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—an arbitrary figure reached between them as a result of an agreement between two sections of the Government party.
Which did he mean? Did he mean that the denominator four was based upon an honest calculation, or did he mean that it was the result of a political compromise? If the Solicitor-General would enlighten us upon that point, he would enlighten a great number of Members of this House and relieve our minds, because it is a tradition of the House that legislation is produced in relation to the facts, and not as a result of some compromise between two parties without having any relation to the true facts. How often in litigation does one solicitor write to another and say, "I have counsel's opinion on this matter, and it is conclusive"; and the other solicitor writes back, and says, "I would like to know the facts you disclosed to counsel before you asked his opinion." So the Solicitor-General's opinion, which is paraded before us as conclusive, and behind which he refuses to go, is not in the least impressive unless we know the facts which gave rise to that opinion.
Really the Solicitor-General is almost insulting the House of Commons in coming here with his opinions, whether they be the opinions of the Liberal party or not, the basis of which he does not vouchsafe to us. The House would readily give its indulgence to the Solicitor-General if he would explain his opinion. It is admittedly a rough and
ready calculation, and he entirely failed to answer the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). We must always take the opinion of the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) and the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) as conclusive on these matters, and the opinion of the hon. Member for Burslem was that in New York the value of the sky-scraper was about equal to the Value of the site. We have no skyscrapers, thank goodness, in this country yet, but we can only conclude that as a result of this innovation in taxation in this country, we must inevitably get the hideous American architecture introduced here in order to make the proposals of the Solicitor-General fair. Otherwise, the value of the site can never be equal to the value of the building. The result of this particular Amendment will be the accentuation of the tendency for the whole face of London to be changed. They are doing a far greater thing than imposing a tax; they are going to change the architecture of this country. That must inevitably be so if there is any fairness or justice about this proposal. I appeal to the Solicitor-General to give us some definite facts upon which he has based his opinion.

Mr. G. H. WILSON: I am very much interested in what has been said about the basis of this figure four, but I feel that the Solicitor-General has not given us a reasonable explanation of why a site should be regarded as fully developed when the cost of the buildings is four times the site value. I have been looking at the matter and have come to the conclusion that it is the outcome of an elementary mathematical calculation based upon the value of money, upon a certain rate per cent. I am sorry to see the Solicitor-General look so shocked. I will take a short illustration. Supposing an assessment under Schedule A is £800 a year. Multiplying that by four gives £3,200. In order that it should escape this tax the site value must be £3,200. We have the assessment at a figure of £800 and we have to get at the value of the property, and on a 5 per cent. basis one takes 20 years' purchase. Twenty years' purchase gives the figure of £16,000, which is just five times £3,200, and the difference between five and one gives you the figure four. So I think I
am right in saying the whole of this calculation does depend upon some rate per cent. in the capitalisation of the annual value. What reason have the Government got for taking 5 per cent.? Recently the value of money has been 5 per cent., but it is slightly under 5 per cent. now, and in the course of 30 or 40 years it may change very appreciably. Is it proposed to change this factor every time the value of money changes? Unless that be done there is no basis whatsoever for arriving at the figure. I should be glad if someone would give an answer to this particular question.

Mr. DIXEY: This is a very interesting subject, and I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman has given proper consideration to it. If I understood him correctly he said he had no facts on which the figure four was based, that it was a figure arrived at by compromise between his colleagues and himself and the Members of the Liberal party. That is a very interesting piece of information for the House. No doubt the Members of the Liberal party put forward very proper proposals when they first suggested a figure for this reduction. Will the Solicitor-General tell us what was the first figure which the Liberal party put forward as a reduction figure? If he will not tell us himself possibly he will give a lead to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir II. Samuel), who will tell us what was the figure. This is a compromise House of Commons, the Government only survive by compromise, and in these circumstances ordinary Members of the House are entitled to have the full facts on a matter such as this.
The situation in this House is becoming intolerable. I do not want to be insulting to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it is obvious that they do not want to go to the country, and it is also obvious that they desire to get compromise Measures through this House. In justice to the people outside we are bound to press the Government to give us proper information on these questions. I feel very sorry for the Solicitor-General who is in a very uncomfortable position, because he does not feel sure what the party below the Gangway are going to do. Here is a grand opportunity for a gesture to the House. If I am correct in my surmise, the figure we are suggesting
is the very same that the Liberal party put forward at the compromise proceedings. This deductional figure of five times was the very figure the Liberal party aimed at, and I suggest to the Solicitor-General that this is an opportunity for him to get the good will not only of his own party, but of all parties. I give the Liberal party the credit of having suggested this figure to the Government, and if the Solicitor-General will accept it, he might make a gesture to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) who takes this question so seriously, and if he puts forward any figure it must have been most carefully considered.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: I press the Government to give this Amendment further consideration, and I ask them to do so for purely practical reasons. First of all, as a manufacturer and a developer of land, I am going to be severely hit by this tax. What is the position of a man who owns land under the Rent Restrictions Act? That land under Schedule A is not giving any return because the rent is restricted, but it will be very bady hit, and what is the owner going to do? In the first place he will try to buy out or get rid of all those tenants living under the Rent Restrictions Act, and that is a procedure of which no one is in favour. Take for a second case a man who owns a large area of works manufacturing bulky materials, which do not necessarily require a high building and a lot of machinery, but only sheds and lean-to's. That man is going to be taxed twice. My third case is the development of land, and several references have been made to sky-scrapers. In London and other large towns there are laws and restrictions which prevent the putting up of buildings to the height of more than 80 feet or 100 feet, which is the height allowed by the London County Council. These are very definite cases where the owner, developer, or manufacturer is going to be very seriously hit by the tax. I ask the Solicitor-General to be generous and make the figure five times instead of four.

Colonel GRETTON: We have been trying to get some information as to why the number "five" should not be accepted, but the whole proceedings appear to me to be somewhat of a farce.
It is unprecedented, at any rate as regards the many Budgets which I have heard debated in this House, that there has been no senior of the Government present. The Solicitor-General is a new Member, and we all admire the way in which he has taken to the Parliamentary arena; but he must excuse my saying that some of us who are old hands are not so easily misled by his sophistries. We have only junior officers of the Government present, and, no matter what arguments are put forward, they can only make replies which are in the nature of "sealed orders." I desire to protest that a serious Debate like this, in view of the short time allowed for it, is not being attended to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or some other member of the Cabinet who is able to make a compromise or concession. Earlier in the evening, when the Lord Advocate was here, he had to get out of a very awkward situation as well as he could, and he was only able to do so by means of his mechanical majority. I hope that during the rest of the proceedings the House will have the advantage of the presence of a Cabinet Minister who can hear the arguments and will be able to make concessions when the arguments convince him that something ought to be done.

Mr. BEAUMONT: I trust that my right hon. and gallant Friend will forgive me, as a very junior Member, if I show a certain amount of sympathy for the Government after the attack which he has made. All who have listened to these Debates must realise only too well why the Solicitor-General is conducting them. We all know that he is the only Member on the Government side, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren), who has attempted to make out a case for these taxes, and, after the experience which the party opposite have had with other Members on their Front Bench, it is very natural that the Solicitor-General should be the only one whom they will trust on the Government Front Bench at this late hour of the night. It may be a matter for regret that they cannot find a senior member of the Government to handle this case, but it is a matter for no surprise to anyone who has listened to the case for these taxes which has been put forward from the benches opposite.
I intervened really to address once more the question, "Why four?" There
seems to be a sort of "Alice in Wonderland" attitude in regard to these taxes. There is a sort of fanciful and entirely humorous aspect of them which will appeal to all except the unfortunate people who will have to pay them if they come into force. One is reminded of the quotation from "Alice in "Wonderland":
"'Why?' said Alice.
'Why not?' said the March Hare."
That is really all the answer that the Government have given on this question. Legislation on these lines is becoming a pure farce.

Mr. QUIBELL: Why five?

Mr. BEAUMONT: I would reply by asking, Why anything?. Why, in fact, these taxes at all? No satisfactory explanation has ever been given. In answer to the question "Why five?" I would say that six would be a better number, and seven would be better still, because cither would reduce the incidence of this futile and unfair tax, and, the larger the number, the smaller would be the taxation. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) says, "The higher the fewer," or "The greater the less." I think that anyone who has listened to the Debates on this tax must agree that the less the tux paid the greater will be the benefit to the country.
After all, we have not only an unexampled case for reducing the incidence of this dishonest and ridiculous tax. We have the appeal which we understand was so passionately and fervently made from the benches below the Gangway. It was their suggestion and, when we remember the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) the other day in which he said that a General Election would come when he thought the country was ready for it, I suggest to hon. Members opposite that they ought to give him some semblance of the dictator's power. Taking everything into consideration, this is a case in which they might give up the shadow of their tyranny for the substance, which would be of so much benefit to the country when the taxes come in. No adequate reason has been given why four rather than five should be the number. Adequate reasons have been adduced why five is an infinitely better figure—per-
sonally I would rather see six or seven—but anyone who has listened to the Debate and studied the question carefully will feel bound to support the Amendment.

Mr. B. RILEY: I cannot give the hon. Member a reply as to why the figure four has been used in this formula, but I can give a very plain answer to the question why four should be preferred to five. I prefer four because it gives a larger measure of justice to the community than if you use five. There has been an enormous amount of special pleading on the part of vested interests in connection with the proposals of this Bill, and, although I prefer four, as I would prefer two as against four, or as I would prefer the original basis rather than any figure at all, yet, even so, four in large numbers of cases represents a fairly substantial measure of justice to large numbers of people who will come under liability to the tax. Take the enormous number of cases for developing substantial houses in which perhaps £1,000 of capital may be put into both land and buildings, and the proportion between the building and the land may be represented by £800 for the building and £200 for the land. One is entitled to assume that such a property would be assessed under Schedule A at £50 a year. Four times that gives you exactly the value of the site, and will reduce the tax to an eighth of a penny. For that reason "four" is preferable to "five."

Sir B. PETO: This Clause did not appear in the original Bill. We know its history. It is an example of a compromise with representatives of the Liberal party. We all regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not able, for physical reasons, to be present throughout our Debates. We have hero the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), who was certainly a principal in the negotiations on one side and must have known the views of the Liberal party and the Government as to the compromise before it was decided. It is a very peculiar method of legislation. This is a proposal which will measure the taxation to be imposed upon hundreds of thousands, probably a million, people in this country and those people are entitled to know the reason why the particular tax should be asked of them every year. They will
know that there is some sort of attempt to marry two perfectly incompatible things, namely, the taxable value of the buildings and the development of the site, subject to deductions under Schedule A and the capital site value. You have the multiplying figure 4, but no one will know how it has been arrived at. Quite apart from the fact that the Debate is being conducted in the dark there is present, on one side, one of the principals to the bargain, and he has remained in stolid silence throughout the Debate.
If we are to legislate by compromise and negotiation outside this Chamber, at least the Chamber should be informed of the basis of the negotiation. It is an insult to the House for the right hon. Member for Darwen, who knows the facts and that the Opposition have attempted to elicit them throughout the Debate and, have been refused by the Treasury Bench, to sit there and refuse to tell the House what is the basis upon which millions of taxes are to be levied in this country. That is the condition to which legislation is being reduced. I appeal to the House to stop this mockery of legislation by negotiations, bargains and compromises between one section of the House who hold the balance for the moment and the Government in power. What is the use of these Debates? We ask at least to be enlightened as to the basis of the compromise. We are refused the information while parties to the bargain sit in stolid silence. It is making a mockery of legislation, and we may as well close the House of Commons if this sort of thing is to go on.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I, also, was waiting to see if we could not elicit some light on the subject from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). The whole reason for this proposal is wrapped in mystery. One of those who might have thrown light upon it, the Solicitor-General, has already spoken and has refused to do so. He merely stated his opinion, which resolved itself into the result of a compromise. At least we might have expected that the other party to the compromise would, through one of its authoritative members, have thrown some light upon the question as to how they arrived at the
result. I do not know whether silence is golden. I suppose that it is. I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen is prepared to sit there and leave the mystery unexplained until the clock strikes eleven. What is the position which has been reached? First of all, we have been told that four times the annual value will give complete exemption except for that saving fraction which the Liberal party so complacently gave away together with their principles. Otherwise four times the annual value would give complete exemption when the site is fully developed.
Next we have learned that the site will be fully developed when the value of the buildings is four times that of the site. To that, up to the present, no denial has been given, and it can be mathematically demonstrated on a 5 per cent. basis. That is what we have reached. We have asked for the data why the buildings should be four times in value that of the site, and the Solicitor-General has told us that it is his opinion. We can judge from the facts, as regards these buildings, that there is no reason why this opinion should be held. So far as given instances are supplied to us on the best possible authority, there is no reason to believe that on a fully developed site you will always have buildings which are four times in value that of the site.
I will trouble the House with only two cases taken from one city, Edinburgh. There is a site in Princes Street, a cleared site, which was bought by Messrs. Woolworth for £115,000. The buildings are entered in the valuation roll at £5,500, less owners' rates, amounting to £4,400, and on the 5 per cent. basis the value of the buildings would be £88,000, or between two-thirds and three-quarters that of the site. Equally interesting is the case of the Liberal Club in Princes Street. Careful and competent information given of its site value on a comparison with Messrs. Woolworth's site, shows that the site value of this Liberal Club to be £65,000. At the present time it has completely developed its premises, no doubt, as far as it can, because the ground floor is taken up by two shops which are let by the club at a rental entered in the valuation roll, and that, with the annual valuation of the club's premises given in the roll, amounts to £2,900, less owner's rates, about £2,300.
Therefore, calculated in the same way, the total value of the premises will be £47,000 and considerably less than the site value.

Captain GUNSTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any allowance, in regard to the Liberal Club, for the wasting assets?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Vacant possession may, perhaps, soon be given of it, in as much as it is estimated that the tax on it will amount to an annual sum of £231 6s. Those are just instances, and there are others all over the country, which go to show that this arbitrary figure of four to one, while it may be sufficient in some cases, is certainly not right in others. We have been given no data to explain how it has been arrived at, and all we are told is that it is the result of a compromise between the Government and the Liberal party. What we have to ask ourselves is this: does it really mean that the rate of taxation which hundreds and thousands of people will have to bear is to be determined by a compromise between two political parties, for which no reason, no justification, and no data has so far been given. If that is so, then all I can say is that of the many sorry spectacles that we have seen in the course of this Bill this compromise is one of the most discreditable.

Mr. MANDER: Whatever else may be in doubt in this uncertain world there is not the slightest doubt as to why this Amendment has been moved. It is purely a political manœuvre to embarrass the Liberal party, without, of course, any hope of success. It is thought by hon. Members above the Gangway that five was the figure adopted by the Liberal party, and the Amendment has been moved in the vain

hope that a sufficient number of Liberals will be attracted by it to go into the Lobby with hon. Members above the Gangway and turn out the Government, and thus assist them to move over to the other side of the House. Their palms are itching for the seals of office. I submit that what has been going on for the last two hours is an absolute justification for the action of the. Liberal party as a whole in the support they gave the Government in putting forward the Guillotine Resolution. The discussing during the last two hours has been perfectly futile, and if there are no stronger arguments to be brought against this Bill than have been introduced by hon. Members their case must be very weak indeed. I only rise to protest against a shocking waste of Parliamentary time by hon. Members above the Gangway.

Mr. LOCKW00D: I only want to say in answer to the Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander) that it is not true that the arguments put forward from these benches have been put forward with the object of wasting time. The only thing we are trying to do is to protect the vested interests of the citizens of this country. [Interruption.] We desire to see justice done in the matter of taxation, and up to the present there has been no reply to the arguments we have put forward.

It being Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders of the House of the 4th and 29th June, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the word 'four stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 279; Noes, 231.

Division No. 369.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Buchanan, G.


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Benson, G.
Burgess, F. G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.


Alpass, J. H.
Birkett, W. Norman
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)


Ammon, Charles George
Blindell, James
Caine, Hall-, Derwent


Angell, Sir Norman
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Cameron, A. G.


Arnott, John
Bowen, J. W.
Cape, Thomas


Attlee, Clement Richard
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)


Ayles, Walter
Broad, Francis Alfred
Chater, Daniel


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Brockway, A. Fenner
Church, Major A. G.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Bromfield, William
Clarke, J. S.


Barnes, Alfred John
Bromley, J.
Cluse, W. S.


Barr, James
Brooke, W.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.


Batey, Joseph
Brothers, M.
Cocks, Frederick Saymour


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Compton, Joseph


Cove, William G.
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawrence, Susan
Ritson, J.


Daggar, George
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Dallas, George
Lawson, John James
Romeril, H. G.


Dalton, Hugh
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Leach, W.
Rowson, Guy


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lees, J.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Leonard, W.
Sanders, W. S.


Dukes, C.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sandham, E.


Duncan, Charles
Lindley, Fred W.
Sawyer, G. F.


Ede, James Chuter
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Scott, James


Edmunds, J. E.
Logan, David Gilbert
Scurr, John


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Longbottom, A. W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Longden, F.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Elmley, Viscount
Lunn, William
Sherwood, G. H.


Foot, Isaac
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shield, George William


Gardner, R. W. (West Ham, Upton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shillaker, J. F.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
McElwee, A.
Shinwell, E.


Gibbins, Joseph
McEntee, V. L.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Simmons, C. J.


Gill, T. H.
McKinlay, A.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Gillett, George M.
MacLaren, Andrew
Sinkinson, George


Glassey, A. E.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Sitch, Charles H.


Gossling, A. G.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Gould, F.
McShane, John James
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Gray, Milner
Manning, E. L.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Mansfield, W.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
March, S.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' w.)
Marcus, M.
Sorensen, R.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Markham, S. F.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Groves, Thomas E.
Marley, J.
Stephen, Campbell


Grundy, Thomas W.
Marshall, Fred
Strauss, G. R


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mathers, George
Sullivan, J.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Matters, L. W.
Sutton, J. E.


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Maxton, James
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Messer, Fred
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Middleton, G.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Mliner, Major J.
Tillett, Ben


Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Montague, Frederick
Tinker, John Joseph


Harris, Percy A.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Toole, Joseph


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morley, Ralph
Tout, W. J.


Haycock, A. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Townend, A. E


Hayday, Arthur
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham. N.)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Mort, D. L.
Vaughan, David


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Muff, G.
Viant, S. P.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Walkden, A. G.


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Murnin, Hugh
Walker, J.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Wallace, H. W.


Herriotts, J.
Naylor, T. E.
Watkins, F. C.


Hicks, Ernest George
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Wellock, Wilfred


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Hoffman, P. C.
Oldfield, J. R.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Hollins, A.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
West, F. R.


Hopkin, Daniel
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Westwood, Joseph


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Isaacs, George
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Palin, John Henry
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Paling, Wilfrid
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Palmer, E. T.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Perry, S. F.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Kelly, W. T.
Pole, Major D. G.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Potts, John S.
Winterton, G E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Kinley, J.
Price, M. P.
Wise, E. F.


Kirkwood, D.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Lang, Gordon
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Raynes, W. R.



Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Richards, R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYBS.—


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charleton.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ashley, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)


Albery, Irving James
Aske, Sir Robert
Balfour, George (Hampstead)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Atholl, Duchess of
Balniel, Lord


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Baillie-Hamliton, Hon. Charles W.
Beaumont, M. W.




Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Frece, Sir Walter de
O'Connor, T. J.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Galbraith, J. F. W.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Ganzonl, Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Boothby, H. J. G.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Penny, Sir George


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Glyn, Major R. Q. C.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Perkins, W. R. D.


Boyce, Leslie
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bracken, B.
G rattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Pybus, Percy John


Brass, Captain Sir William
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Ramsbotham, H.


Briscoe, Richard George
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Remer, John R.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Buchan, John
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Rodd, Rt. Hon Sir James Rennell


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hammersley, S. S.
Ross, Ronald D.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hanbury, C.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Butler, R. A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hartington, Marquess of
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Salmon, Major I.


Campbell, E. T.
Haslam, Henry C.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Carver, Major W. H.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Savery, S. S.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S
Skelton, A. N.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Christle, J. A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Smithers, Waldron


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Somerset, Thomas


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Iveagh, Countess of
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Colman, N. C. D.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Colville, Major D. J.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Cooper, A. Duff
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Moiton)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro & Whitby)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Cowan, D. M.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Cranbourne, Viscount
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Thompson, Luke


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Tltchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Train, J.


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lymington, Viscount
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dixey, A. C.
Macquisten, F. A.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wells, Sydney R.


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Marjorlbanks, Edward
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s, M.)
Millar, J. D.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Everard, W. Lindsay
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Womersley, W. J.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ferguson, Sir John
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Fermoy, Lord
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Clrensester)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Fielden, E. B.
Muirhead, A. J.



Fison, F. G. Clavering
Nail-Cain, A. R. N.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ford, Sir P. J
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain Austin Hudson.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Eleven of the Clock at this day's Sitting.

Amendments made: In page 15, line 38, leave out the words "a sum," and insert instead thereof the words "an amount."

In line 40, at the end, insert the words:
(2) For the purposes of the charge of the tax, the land value of very land unit in respect of which a cultivation value is shown by the entries relating thereto shall be reduced either—

(a) by the amount of that cultivation value; or
(b) by the amount by which the land value would have been reduced under the last foregoing Sub-section if no cultivation value had been shown by the entries relating to the unit,

whichever is the greater.

In page 16, line 23, leave out Subsection (3).—[The Solicitor-General.]

Ordered,
That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved,
That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock